791 réponses à ce sujet

[Weiser_Cain]

I like that idea a lot.

[Tony Gunslinger]

tjzsf wrote...

Because the reasonings for why having ammo is superior are a hella lot more ridiculous.

You think ME2's system is so much better? Then answer these two things.

From an in-verse perspective, explain to me how it makes any sense that "ammo" is presented as being an advancement of technology when someone with a smattering of elemental strategy could see that reintroducing an element of logistics that was previously eliminated is a stupid idea.

Because weapons that gets overheated for 3-4 secs during a battle is a stupid design. Except in the rare cases where it's worth the oveheat penalty for that extra sniper shot, NO soliders want that feature in their gun.

Let's say your pistol can shoot 12 rounds before it overheats. Stop shooting at 12, wait for 1.5 secs and you can shoot 12 more. If you shoot 13, you wait for overheat. Suppose I convert that gun into the reload system. I shoot 13, the heat sink is overheated, reload a new one in 1.5 secs, I shoot another 13, reload in 1.5 secs. My pistol is better than your pistol.

Let's say your SMG can shoot 50 rounds @ 925RPM before it overheats. Good luck timing it to stop precisely at 50 rounds. On average, you'll stop roughly between 40-45 to not risk of overheat. At the same time, your attention is divided between the battlefield and thinking about your heat gauge. Now I convert your SMG into the reload system. I can shoot 51 rounds without hesitation, focusing on the fight, knowing 1.5 secs later I can shoot 51 rounds again. My SMG is better than your SMG.

Guns with overheat will underperform vs. the same gun converted into ME2's system.

From a meta perspective, explain to me how forcing you the player to play a certain way is better than allowing you to either use primarily guns, primarily a certain type of gun, primarily powers, a mix of gun and powers, and everything in between.

That's like complaining you're being forced to make certain moves in a fighting game, and then complain that you can't kick, punch, or jump when you can already do. You're not being forced, you're being challenged. That's what happens when you play games.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

^ Your example sucks because, unlike the real world, the ME-verse has super-strong ablative armors, shields and biotic barriers. Basically, any battle in which both sides are equally skilled would boil down to attrition. That is to say, the side with the most ammo would win.

Plus, I'd be willing to bet that with non-respawning ammo, the side with finite ammo would be less inclined to waste it, therefore your quicker reload would be offset (but not completely) by your need to line shots up more accurately and conserve ammo. That's not even touching on the fact that a huge portion of your ammo reserve would be wasted on whittling down passive defenses like shields and barriers, before even managing to wound your enemy (and, again, if your enemy ducks into cover, that ammo will have been wasted for nothing).

Plus, scavenging ammo from dead soldiers is a serious waste of time; not only would you be diverting your attention from your enemies' movements, you'd also be giving your enemies time to advance.

Seriously, focusing on just the reload times for weapons when there are so many other things to consider is just odd.

[Xeranx]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Because weapons that gets overheated for 3-4 secs during a battle is a stupid design. Except in the rare cases where it's worth the oveheat penalty for that extra sniper shot, NO soliders want that feature in their gun.

Let's say your pistol can shoot 12 rounds before it overheats. Stop shooting at 12, wait for 1.5 secs and you can shoot 12 more. If you shoot 13, you wait for overheat. Suppose I convert that gun into the reload system. I shoot 13, the heat sink is overheated, reload a new one in 1.5 secs, I shoot another 13, reload in 1.5 secs. My pistol is better than your pistol.

Let's say your SMG can shoot 50 rounds @ 925RPM before it overheats. Good luck timing it to stop precisely at 50 rounds. On average, you'll stop roughly between 40-45 to not risk of overheat. At the same time, your attention is divided between the battlefield and thinking about your heat gauge. Now I convert your SMG into the reload system. I can shoot 51 rounds without hesitation, focusing on the fight, knowing 1.5 secs later I can shoot 51 rounds again. My SMG is better than your SMG.

Guns with overheat will underperform vs. the same gun converted into ME2's system.

I hope you realize how much your example lends credence to overheating being more tactical.  What you've demonstrated is a want to get back to combat as fast as possible.  You're not demonstrating how much you want your shots to count which is what many have stated in regards to thermal clips in this thread.  You've said you'd fire off that 13th shot and pop in another thermal clip whereas someone with the overheating scenario will stop at 12 so they don't have to deal with an overlong cooling system, correct?  Which system, then, do you think will have people actually care about making their shots count?  

From this I can surmize that some may waste ammo knowing that they have a thermal clip that they can fall back on to utilize once they've spent the first.  With the overheating scenario that's not the case.  Because that cooldown period is expensive you'll take better care with your shots.  You'll find better access to take your target down if need be and/or use other means to take your target out.  Instead of your gun performing better, you're performing better which is exactly how I feel it should be.

Again, having a spare clip or several means I can take 51 shots from my smg rather than 49 and do my best to make them count.  That was your example and to me that sounds like you end up wasting more ammo with the clip than you would if the gun just overheated.

[Bozorgmehr]

What do you guys want? More guns or less?

Overheat-cooldown with unlimited ammo is a gimped, simplified, dumbed-down system. It's horrible whatever way you look at it. That's why Bioware - like every other sensible game developer - uses a limited ammo count (in ME3). It has more freedom to design cool weapons which CANNOT be designed with the gimped, simplified, dumbed-down (ME1 ish) crap.

This has NOTHING to do with opinion, it's a FACT - known since gaming prehistory. Anyone who considers gameplay to be of, at least, minor importance can only embrace a limited ammo system; those who prefer to ruin gameplay completely, and thus care nothing about Mass Effect, would do well to keep rambling about their worthlessly-crippled-unlimited-ammo-cheat-system.

[DieBySword]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Overheat-cooldown with unlimited ammo is a gimped, simplified, dumbed-down system.

U mad bro

Bozorgmehr wrote...
It's horrible whatever way you look at it. That's why Bioware - like every other sensible game developer - uses a limited ammo count (in ME3). It has more freedom to design cool weapons which CANNOT be designed with the gimped, simplified, dumbed-down (ME1 ish) crap.

This has NOTHING to do with opinion, it's a FACT - known since gaming prehistory. Anyone who considers gameplay to be of, at least, minor importance can only embrace a limited ammo system; those who prefer to ruin gameplay completely, and thus care nothing about Mass Effect, would do well to keep rambling about their worthlessly-crippled-unlimited-ammo-cheat-system.

Thats why BW when they made ME1 was an unsensible game company but after adopting "drop the problem zone" tactics it became a sensible gaming company I understand when you played mass effect and there was no mass effect 2 in sight you were so mad playing ME1 the gimped, simplystic and dumbed-down game it was

Modifié par DieBySword, 30 mai 2011 - 11:32 .

[Bozorgmehr]

DieBySword wrote...

U mad bro

Me and the whole game developing community, if that's what you're saying. Why do you think no one else has even considered using this inferior system?

Removing ammo always, by definition, gimps, simplifies and dumbs down the system. Removing ammo is exactly like removing whatever you can think of. Removing weapons, inventory, leveling, health, money, resources, characters, levels, classes, ... , and/or ammo = gimping, simplifying and dumbing down.

1 + 1 =/= 1 + 0 ; this is kindergarten math > what is it you don't understand about this?

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

What do you guys want? More guns or less?

Overheat-cooldown with unlimited ammo is a gimped, simplified, dumbed-down system. It's horrible whatever way you look at it. That's why Bioware - like every other sensible game developer - uses a limited ammo count (in ME3). It has more freedom to design cool weapons which CANNOT be designed with the gimped, simplified, dumbed-down (ME1 ish) crap.

A) Every game thats based off of WW2 or Modern Era combat are based off time period or current weapons, as far as I know, we have never had unlimited ammo weapons in the past or currently. Thus every weapon is modelled as current. People accept that. Real guns require real bullets which require real ammo restock points (or picking up of weapons/ammo from your enemy). Thus, gameplay mimics real life. And this is perfectly fine.
There have been other games where there have been Laser based weapons, but as far as I can currently remember, I can only think about Mech Warrior, in which heat was a factor in how much you could fire in a given time frame. As far as I know, there was no issue with Mechs with ****ing huge lasers as weapons ever being the issue. And they were perfectly balanced in terms of damage/RoF/cool-down-time.
C) You have YET, YET to give any valid reasonings why unqiue weapons can't be designed with heat based / unlimited ammo.  You keep on screaming it, but it doesn't make it true. And as we all know in ME2, There are Weapon Bs that are clearly better then Weapon As. The only issue heat management has is allowing player spot camping; other then that, there absolutly nothing in weapons uniqueness regardless if its heat or ammo based. ME1 system was nothing more then bare bones basic weapons with slightly different stats that slowly improved as you found a better version. Nothing more, nothing less.

This has NOTHING to do with opinion, it's a FACT - known since gaming prehistory. Anyone who considers gameplay to be of, at least, minor importance can only embrace a limited ammo system; those who prefer to ruin gameplay completely, and thus care nothing about Mass Effect, would do well to keep rambling about their worthlessly-crippled-unlimited-ammo-cheat-system.

I'm glad ME1 was a "cheaters" game then.  I bet you feel so dirty for having to have played ME1 and "cheated" thru it. The only thing that made ME1 system bad was the over use of mods and player talents that made the system imbalanced. They could have clearly fixed the imbalance (never heating weapon - double frictionless mod issue) and we could have a much tighter gameplay.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 12:33 .

[Sgt Stryker]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

I'm not saying that it does matter. What I'm trying to say is that, if you're going to cheat, don't sit there and try and justify it as not cheating. Don't say "I'm not cheating", don't be surprised when people don't take your remarks seriously because you did cheat. 

If you cheat, just accept it and admit that you're cheating. I cheat in some games too, mostly because I just want to see the story and I don't give a crap about stupid combat mechanics or whatnot, but I'll fully admit to cheating.

Just admit that when you change game mechanics are you, in fact, cheating. That's all I want to see someone say.

The only thing I'll admit to is that you and I have different definitions of cheating. Let's just leave it at that.

EDIT: I'm also guessing you've never played the Total War series of strategy games. For these games, there's a whole community dedicated to changing certain aspects of the gameplay mechanics. They're called modders, not cheaters.

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 30 mai 2011 - 01:11 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Mr. MannlyMan + Xernax,

What I'm demonstrated was how the codex entry "Mathematically reviewing their combat logs, the geth found that in an age of kinetic barriers, most firefights were won by the side who could put the most rounds down-range the fastest. But combatants were forced to deliberately shoot slower to manage heat, or pause as weapons heated" is true. ME2 guns will outperform ME1 guns. tjzsf wanted why technology "reverted back" in terms of lore. There it is.

If mass-accelerated weapons exist in real life, they would have added a limiter like they do with car engines so you never overheat by default. Furthermore, these guns would also have multiple fire rate settings, including one that allows you to continuously fire without ever overheat, effectively able to hold the tigger forever.

So why don't ME1 guns behave like this?

Because it's a f*cking game. The reason why Shep doesn't have the last thermal clip to fall back on in ME2 is the same reason weapons overheat in ME1: it's there as a gameplay mechanic, nothing more. Lore and gameplay are unrelated. Both systems are trying to place restrictions on the player, both system contradicts lore.

The difference is that ME1 guns produced more problems than it solves: 1) the cooldown system limits weapon design. 2) the cooldown system distracts you from the battlefield 3) most importantly, the cooldown system does not prevent people from exploiting the unlimited ammo, and turning battles into a turtle fest.

These are very legitimate reasons to ditch it.

Xeranx wrote...

I hope you realize how much your example lends credence to overheating being more tactical.

By your definition of 'tactical', I can replace guns entirely and make players use an object that I call a Xoxod, where if you make the Xoxod laugh, he shoots out laser beams. But if you make the Xoxod cry, it blows up in your face. By your definition, my Xoxod system is even more 'tactical' than overheat.

Just like Xoxod, the overheat system is another layer of distraction. Shooting performance should be a byproduct of skill and reflexes. Shooting should not have an abstract mechanism deliberately gimping your skill.

Tactics is not about watching a meter turning red. Tactics is about how to control or dominate the battlefield: choosing the right weapon, using the right powers, choosing the right squadmates, choosing to defend your position or choosing to flank, choosing to snipe vs. cqc.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 30 mai 2011 - 01:22 .

[tjzsf]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Because weapons that gets overheated for 3-4 secs during a battle is a stupid design. Except in the rare cases where it's worth the oveheat penalty for that extra sniper shot, NO soliders want that feature in their gun.

Let's say your pistol can shoot 12 rounds before it overheats. Stop shooting at 12, wait for 1.5 secs and you can shoot 12 more. If you shoot 13, you wait for overheat. Suppose I convert that gun into the reload system. I shoot 13, the heat sink is overheated, reload a new one in 1.5 secs, I shoot another 13, reload in 1.5 secs. My pistol is better than your pistol.

Let's say your SMG can shoot 50 rounds @ 925RPM before it overheats. Good luck timing it to stop precisely at 50 rounds. On average, you'll stop roughly between 40-45 to not risk of overheat. At the same time, your attention is divided between the battlefield and thinking about your heat gauge. Now I convert your SMG into the reload system. I can shoot 51 rounds without hesitation, focusing on the fight, knowing 1.5 secs later I can shoot 51 rounds again. My SMG is better than your SMG.

Guns with overheat will underperform vs. the same gun converted into ME2's system.

From a meta perspective, explain to me how forcing you the player to play a certain way is better than allowing you to either use primarily guns, primarily a certain type of gun, primarily powers, a mix of gun and powers, and everything in between.

That's like complaining you're being forced to make certain moves in a fighting game, and then complain that you can't kick, punch, or jump when you can already do. You're not being forced, you're being challenged. That's what happens when you play games.

Point 1: in-verse "problem" you mentioned is easily solvable by slightly more emphasis on fire control, a concept that is already drilled into soldiers IRL. It takes a rather small adjustment to the currently existing process to account for overheating from a grunt level. Also on a grunt level, in the case of your hypothetical pistols scenario, in 3 seconds, you pump out 26 shots, and I would
pump out 24, but in that case the "advantage" to your gun is so
miniscule that it might as well not matter, esIn the meantime, no sane commander is going to swap out his armory with thermal clip weapons, for the very simple reason that that introduces another layer of logistics that they don't need. If I was a vietcong, and you gave me a choice between an ME1 gun and an ME2 gun, I'd take the ME1 gun every time because it doesn't become a futuristic club once I run out of thermal clips.

Point 2: No, it's like complaining I'm being forced to only kick if I play a fighting game. It's like if you *could* kick, punch, and throw in a fighting game, but the game only really rewards kicking. All those things I mentioned - "primarily guns, primarily a certain type of gun, primarily powers, a mix of gun and powers, and everything in between" - are supposed to be perfectly viable ways of playing the game. Hiding behind cover to take potshots is a perfectly viable gunfighting method provided you have someone watching to make sure you don't get flanked, which you do. Rushing into combat is also a perfectly viable gunfighting method provided you have such things as shields and health regen, which you do. But the system is biased in favor of the latter and not any of the other methods that, really, should be playable. It's being challenged if I'm a rogue and have to sneak around in a hi-security prison. It's being forced if I have to do the same, but for some reason I have to wear a bell on each limb.

[tjzsf]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

What do you guys want? More guns or less?

Overheat-cooldown with unlimited ammo is a gimped, simplified, dumbed-down system. It's horrible whatever way you look at it. That's why Bioware - like every other sensible game developer - uses a limited ammo count (in ME3). It has more freedom to design cool weapons which CANNOT be designed with the gimped, simplified, dumbed-down (ME1 ish) crap.

This has NOTHING to do with opinion, it's a FACT - known since gaming prehistory. Anyone who considers gameplay to be of, at least, minor importance can only embrace a limited ammo system; those who prefer to ruin gameplay completely, and thus care nothing about Mass Effect, would do well to keep rambling about their worthlessly-crippled-unlimited-ammo-cheat-system.

Overheat-cooldown with unlimited ammo is horrid and nonsensical and leads to low weapon variety? Never played Mechwarrior have you? And I suppose ME2's whopping two weapons for every gun type (barring DLC that you have to pay for) is supposed to demonstrate your point that limited ammo -> more cool guns?

Many assertions, many conclusions, all non sequitur. Mordin would be disappointed.

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
Both systems are trying to place restrictions on the player, both system contradicts lore.

Wait..
WHAT? ME1 was the lore, so there is no contraction there. Heat and heat alone was the limiting factor. You pause a couple of seconds and you could keep on firing. The user never needed to worry about running out of ammo (unless they were toward at the end of a metal block [per lore] - but this was never in game; something we guess Ashley or another crew member did after each mission) but the given allowance of ammo was never a factor. Just the RoF (or time frame) at which you could fire your weapon at.

RoF or time period/duration of operation has nothing to with ammo availability or limits.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
The difference is that ME1 guns produced more problems than it solves: 1) the cooldown system limits weapon design. 2) the cooldown system distracts you from the battlefield 3) most importantly, the cooldown system does not prevent people from exploiting the unlimited ammo, and turning battles into a turtle fest.

1) Personal belief, not fact.
2) You may be correct on that; It could distract some people - yet other people would find it more exciting & challenging. I know I do. I guess you don't play any RTS. If RTS are too tough for you, do you argue that each side should have only 5 units because any more distracts you from the battlefield?
3) Again, you may be correct, but there are many things that can be done to fix this, changing to ammo-based was the most simplistic safest bet the development team could have taken.
On a site note, as a Vangard - I'm shocked in how many less enemies I have to kill because I always break this invisible barrier line that stops spawns. I swear my Vangard has 1/2 the kills then from any other class.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 01:55 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

A) Every game thats based off of WW2 or Modern Era combat are based off time period or current weapons, as far as I know, we have never had unlimited ammo weapons in the past or currently. Thus every weapon is modelled as current. People accept that. Real guns require real bullets which require real ammo restock points (or picking up of weapons/ammo from your enemy). Thus, gameplay mimics real life. And this is perfectly fine.
There have been other games where there have been Laser based weapons, but as far as I can currently remember, I can only think about Mech Warrior, in which heat was a factor in how much you could fire in a given time frame. As far as I know, there was no issue with Mechs with ****ing huge lasers as weapons ever being the issue. And they were perfectly balanced in terms of damage/RoF/cool-down-time.
C) You have YET, YET to give any valid reasonings why unqiue weapons can't be designed with heat based / unlimited ammo.  You keep on screaming it, but it doesn't make it true. And as we all know in ME2, There are Weapon Bs that are clearly better then Weapon As. The only issue heat management has is allowing player spot camping; other then that, there absolutly nothing in weapons uniqueness regardless if its heat or ammo based. ME1 system was nothing more then bare bones basic weapons with slightly different stats that slowly improved as you found a better version. Nothing more, nothing less.

You're obviously oblivious to computer games. Never heard of sci-fi - futuristic shooters? The pioneers of the genre, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake - to name a few - are all sci-fi games, including aliens. All weapons had ammo, they used to exact same weapons as in ME (shotguns, pistols, sniper rifles, assault rifles etc) PLUS a wide variety of other fun, bizarre, cool, powerful, insane weapons which are NOT POSSIBLE in a game which has no ammo.

You can create a heat-based/cooldown system WITH limited ammo; they have nothing to do with one another.

I'm glad ME1 was a "cheaters" game then.  I bet you feel so dirty for having to have played ME1 and "cheated" thru it. The only thing that made ME1 system bad was the over use of mods and player talents that made the system imbalanced. They could have clearly fixed the imbalance (never heating weapon - double frictionless mod issue) and we could have a much tighter gameplay.

I felt disappointed with the lackluster ME1 gameplay/combat. It wasn't gaming actually, it was butchering worthless enemies who couldn't fight back or their attacks didn't hurt at all. It's a complete fluke.

You're again trying to fit in stuff which is completely irrelevant. Weapon mods are not something unique you know, you don't need unlimited (or no ammo) and a cooldown/heat system to introduce weapon-modding.

Taking ammo out of the equation ALWAYS means you're simplifying, gimping and dumbing down the system.

[Bozorgmehr]

tjzsf wrote...

Many assertions, many conclusions, all non sequitur. Mordin would be disappointed.

Can you read? If so, then I recommend to read the previous posts.

Can you count? I think monkeys know the difference between having one apple and two apples.

[Tony Gunslinger]

tjzsf wrote...
Point 1: in-verse "problem" you mentioned is easily solvable by slightly more emphasis on fire control, a concept that is already drilled into soldiers IRL. It takes a rather small adjustment to the currently existing process to account for overheating from a grunt level.

You're talking about skill, not weapons. Give two guys with the same skill the two different weapons, the one using the manual reload will perform better.

Also on a grunt level, in the case of your hypothetical pistols scenario, in 3 seconds, you pump out 26 shots, and I would
pump out 24, but in that case the "advantage" to your gun is so
miniscule that it might as well not matter, esIn the meantime, no sane commander is going to swap out his armory with thermal clip weapons, for the very simple reason that that introduces another layer of logistics that they don't need.
If I was a vietcong, and you gave me a choice between an ME1 gun and an ME2 gun, I'd take the ME1 gun every time because it doesn't become a futuristic club once I run out of thermal clips.

The thermal clips are the same in ME1 and ME2. In the ME universe, when you run out of clips, you go back to the overheat system.

Point 2: No, it's like complaining I'm being forced to only kick if I play a fighting game. It's like if you *could* kick, punch, and throw in a fighting game, but the game only really rewards kicking.

Some opponents are better at block kicks than punches and vice versa. If you're rewarded equally for kicking or punching, what's the point of having both kick and punch? Why not just have punch? Why use punch at all? Why not just have a button called "win"?

All those things I mentioned - "primarily guns, primarily a certain type of gun, primarily powers, a mix of gun and powers, and everything in between" - are supposed to be perfectly viable ways of playing the game. Hiding behind cover to take potshots is a perfectly viable gunfighting method provided you have someone watching to make sure you don't get flanked, which you do. Rushing into combat is also a perfectly viable gunfighting method provided you have such things as shields and health regen, which you do. But the system is biased in favor of the latter and not any of the other methods that, really, should be playable. It's being challenged if I'm a rogue and have to sneak around in a hi-security prison. It's being forced if I have to do the same, but for some reason I have to wear a bell on each limb.

Refer to the kick/punch analogy. If you can just snipe everything, what's the point of shotguns/ARs/SMGs/powers/squadmates/tactics?

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

You're obviously oblivious to computer games. Never heard of sci-fi - futuristic shooters? The pioneers of the genre, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D, Quake - to name a few - are all sci-fi games, including aliens. All weapons had ammo, they used to exact same weapons as in ME (shotguns, pistols, sniper rifles, assault rifles etc) PLUS a wide variety of other fun, bizarre, cool, powerful, insane weapons which are NOT POSSIBLE in a game which has no ammo.

Listen, we've have clearly & repeatedly stated that some weapons are perfectly fine on limited ammo, such as ME2 heavy weapons. So why do you have to try to drag every argument into an all or nothing deal.
Some limited ammo weapons are cool and should be designed into the game.

Non of us have an issue with ME2 Heavy Weapons. Which just are what you just listed off in your "bizarre, cool, powerful, insane weapons". They work off of ammo and that is perfectly fine. So how about you quit trying to compare apples to oranges; we just want to talk about the apples here (AR, Pistol, Shotgun and SR).

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Taking ammo out of the equation ALWAYS means you're simplifying, gimping and dumbing down the system.

Oh right.. and dumbing down the system to the same-old standard everybody else does ammo system isn't dumbing down the system, instead of being innovative unique and creative?

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 02:24 .

[JayhartRIC]

tjzsf wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Weiser_Cain wrote...
If it's such a non-issue why do you care either way?

Because I've seen the most ridiculous reasonings why ME2's system isn't good enough, and that simply annoys me.

Like when everyone's whining about how they have to pick up ammo, and that they shouldn't run out of it, because then they have to do something like *gasp* switching weapons or use powers that 5/6 of the classes have that aren't connected to the guns at all.

What ridiculous reasonings, pray tell?

Because the reasonings for why having ammo is superior are a hella lot more ridiculous.

You think ME2's system is so much better? Then answer these two things.

From an in-verse perspective, explain to me how it makes any sense that "ammo" is presented as being an advancement of technology when someone with a smattering of elemental strategy could see that reintroducing an element of logistics that was previously eliminated is a stupid idea.

From a meta perspective, explain to me how forcing you the player to play a certain way is better than allowing you to either use primarily guns, primarily a certain type of gun, primarily powers, a mix of gun and powers, and everything in between.

I maintain that a decent compromise would ahve been to allow your current thermal clip to regenerate shots after a period of not firing, but once it hits 0 you switch it in for another clip. If you have no clips left, then your gun does the overheat thing in ME1.

In universe, I would say shields began to outclass weapons so much that the overheating weapons basically did no damage against them.  So they fitted the weapons to fire larger projectiles, meaning more damage, but at the cost of more heat.  Waiting for the weapons to cool down would take way longer than before.  Plus, Sabotage could take you out of the fight for a whole minute.  With the new system pop in a new thermal clip and your back in the fight.  I actually would like it in ME3 if enemies used Overload on you and could potentially the rest of your clip.

As far as gameplay is concerned, using your logic you could just as easily demand unlimited Cain shots.

Modifié par JayhartRIC, 30 mai 2011 - 02:34 .

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
You're talking about skill, not weapons. Give two guys with the same skill the two different weapons, the one using the manual reload will perform better.

Does the one using a manual reload have a unlimited supply of ammo clips? Then yes.

If no, then the one using manual reload HAS to be more careful with each shot.

The one using regen ammo and make more mistakes, lay down more cover fire to keep the target pinned; just basically use his weapon more. All he needs to do is be sure to pause every so often - which may cause the occasional slight disadvantage.

[JayhartRIC]

JayhartRIC wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Weiser_Cain wrote...
If it's such a non-issue why do you care either way?

Because I've seen the most ridiculous reasonings why ME2's system isn't good enough, and that simply annoys me.

Like when everyone's whining about how they have to pick up ammo, and that they shouldn't run out of it, because then they have to do something like *gasp* switching weapons or use powers that 5/6 of the classes have that aren't connected to the guns at all.

What ridiculous reasonings, pray tell?

Because the reasonings for why having ammo is superior are a hella lot more ridiculous.

You think ME2's system is so much better? Then answer these two things.

From an in-verse perspective, explain to me how it makes any sense that "ammo" is presented as being an advancement of technology when someone with a smattering of elemental strategy could see that reintroducing an element of logistics that was previously eliminated is a stupid idea.

From a meta perspective, explain to me how forcing you the player to play a certain way is better than allowing you to either use primarily guns, primarily a certain type of gun, primarily powers, a mix of gun and powers, and everything in between.

I maintain that a decent compromise would ahve been to allow your current thermal clip to regenerate shots after a period of not firing, but once it hits 0 you switch it in for another clip. If you have no clips left, then your gun does the overheat thing in ME1.

In universe, I would say shields began to outclass weapons so much that the overheating weapons basically did no damage against them.  So they fitted the weapons to fire larger projectiles, meaning more damage, but at the cost of more heat.  Waiting for the weapons to cool down would take way longer than before.  Plus, Sabotage could take you out of the fight for a whole minute.  With the new system pop in a new thermal clip and your back in the fight.  I actually would like it in ME3 if enemies used Overload on you and could potentially burn the rest of your clip.

As far as gameplay is concerned, using your logic you could just as easily demand unlimited Cain shots.

[Murmillos]

JayhartRIC wrote...

As far as gameplay is concerned, using your logic you could just as easily demand unlimited Cain shots.

Can all of you morons stop with this ridiculous hyperbole. That is NOT what we are asking for and is defiantly NOT what we want.

The only thing we are debating or even asking of changing is having the basic weapons (AR, Pistol, SMG, Shotgun, SR) to work off of heat instead of ammo.

[SalsaDMA]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

^ Your example sucks because, unlike the real world, the ME-verse has super-strong ablative armors, shields and biotic barriers. Basically, any battle in which both sides are equally skilled would boil down to attrition. That is to say, the side with the most ammo would win.

Wrong.

"Mass Effect: Revelation" clearly illustrates that even special ops can only take a few shots before their shield is torn off, and hits on unshielded targets, despite them wearing armor, turns whatever gets hit into a bloody pulp.

That is lore. What you see in the game is gameplay adaptions of the lore.

Oh... And you obviously ignore that ammo is a factually limited resource in the lore as well. Clips hold a limited amount of shots already in the timeperiod that ME1 takes place in.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Murmillos wrote...

Wait..
WHAT? ME1 was the lore, so there is no contraction there. Heat and heat alone was the limiting factor.

In the ME universe, if overheat makes you stop shooting for a really long time, why don't they build a limiter to prevent that? You're already manually doing it by looking at a meter. Just make the gun stop shooting after an acceptable heat buildup, competitive to reload time. The reason ME1 guns don't have this and make you use an inferior gun is because of gameplay, not because it makes sense if you live in that world.

You pause a couple of seconds and you could keep on firing. The user never needed to worry about running out of ammo (unless they were toward at the end of a metal block [per lore] - but this was never in game; something we guess Ashley or another crew member did after each mission) but the given allowance of ammo was never a factor. Just the RoF (or time frame) at which you could fire your weapon at.

By your standards, that's a contradiction of lore right there. In the ME universe, it can 10,000 rounds (sic). In the game, it never runs out. How is that different than Shep not having a default heat sink to fall back on in ME2?

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
The difference is that ME1 guns produced more problems than it solves: 1) the cooldown system limits weapon design. 2) the cooldown system distracts you from the battlefield 3) most importantly, the cooldown system does not prevent people from exploiting the unlimited ammo, and turning battles into a turtle fest.

1) Personal belief, not fact.

There are already posts that demonstrate how cooldowns limit design choices.

2) You may be correct on that; It could distract some people - yet other people would find it more exciting & challenging. I know I do. I guess you don't play any RTS. If RTS are too tough for you, do you argue that each side should have only 5 units because any more distracts you from the battlefield?

I've already given my Xoxod analogy.

3) Again, you may be correct, but there are many things that can be done to fix this, changing to ammo-based was the most simplistic safest bet the development team could have taken.

Sometimes simple solutions are also very elegant, and the implementation itself is never simple. A game is a system where all the variables are inter-related. You don't shove in another variable without upsetting everything else.

On a site note, as a Vangard - I'm shocked in how many less enemies I have to kill because I always break this invisible barrier line that stops spawns. I swear my Vangard has 1/2 the kills then from any other class.

In ME2, you're a special ops guy. The longer you're lingering out in the open, the chances enemies will alert to your position go up.

If your assignment is to storm into a terrorist leader's compound at a foreign country, but you have no intel as you what kind of resistance may be inside, your 'tactic' of camping out 500 yards away to snipe everyone is the worst tactic of all time. The longer you're out there, the longer enemies will have to come with a counteroffensive. They will flank you, they will send more troops, they will make a call to their buddies. The terrorist leader will hop on a cab while eating doritos. Local authorities will arrive and shoot you. You're letting them fail your mission. Special ops are about reaching an objective while minimizing collateral damage.

You are Shepard, special TACTICS and recon.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 30 mai 2011 - 02:45 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

Listen, we've have clearly & repeatedly stated that some weapons are perfectly fine on limited ammo, such as ME2 heavy weapons. So why do you have to try to drag every argument into an all or nothing deal.
Some limited ammo weapons are cool and should be designed into the game.

Non of us have an issue with ME2 Heavy Weapons. Which just are what you just listed off in your "bizarre, cool, powerful, insane weapons". They work off of ammo and that is perfectly fine. So how about you quit trying to compare apples to oranges; we just want to talk about the apples here (AR, Pistol, Shotgun and SR).

OK, so you understand the concept with ME2's heavy weapons. Can you explain the fundamental difference between ME2 heavy weapons and other weapons? For all I know it's just a name or label > we're gonna label this weapons a 'heavy' weapon, and that weapon a SMG. It like saying all people are either black, white, or yellow.

There are only people, just like there are only weapons - people have different characteristics, just like weapon. How you call one is something entirely different - it's called classification.

In a lot of shooters you have 'normal' pistols and a (very powerful) Magnum; both weapons have roughly the same rate of fire, yet the Magnum inflicts multiple times more damage per shot (and over time). Adding ammo puts restrictions on the Magnum, ammo always comes in very limited supply so you cannot use it all the time > you have to chose when and/or against whom you're going to use those valuable shots. With unlimited ammo you don't have to make such a call; with unlimited ammo the pistol is an useless, obsolete weapon - only to be used by those who gimp themselves on purpose.

Oh right.. and dumbing down the system to the same-old standard everybody else does ammo system isn't dumbing down the system, instead of being innovative unique and creative?

So you're saying a formula with 4 variables is less complicated than a formula with 5 variables? Funny, taking away something will always make things simpler - or doesn't it?

[LPPrince]

I miss my frictionless materials X.