791 réponses à ce sujet

[tjzsf]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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.

Link between unlimited ammo for basic weapons and dumbed down nonexistent. Consult Battletech/MechWarrior for counterexample. All energy weapons generate heat and have unlimited ammo. Too much heat, mech shuts down for a time. Still manage to have: 2 types of laser (standard and pulse), 3 categories of each type (small, medium, large), specialized heavy weaponry (PPC), and other weapons (flamer, plasma cannon, newer lasers) as well as variants with better stats (Clantech), all of which coexist with many other weapons. Proposition that unlimited ammo causes catastrophic dumbing down of gameplay prepoesterous.

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

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.

I can't explain the choices made by the development team. It made since at one point during the development of ME1, because it was included , but looking at ME1 at a whole, we know there was a lot of stuff that wasn't designed just right.
That is a change that should have been brought to the table for consideration. It would have worked too. All weapons stop firing at 99% heat, so there is never a "overheat" extended cool down period penalty.

I'm not saying ME1 system was perfect, it was fact far from it. But thru careful tweaking and proper balance it could have worked a lot better. Thats what many of us are arguing too; the concept was great, jut marred by some late game imbalance and some frustrating mechanics (such as the overheat).

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?

No, Lore clearly stated that a typical weapon did have a limit, but since that limit was so excessive, it was nearly infinite. Short of exploiting the system so that you never generate heat, give me an example of one mission where you would fire over 10,000 rounds. It could have been one of those things that was done during the many transitional scenes - but the point was, the effective amount of rounds so so excessive, it would have been pointless to show or introduce. Are you trying to say they should have had an ammo counter that started at 10,000 for every weapon?

1) Personal belief, not fact.

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

Again, only to that persons personal preference or thought theology. There has been no empirical proof, other then somebody trying to state that ME1 weapon system was the pinnacle of perfection and had zero flaws and thus all future and past heat management systems could be compared to ME1 design.

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.

Not all players are the same. Some can't handle complexity, others love it. You are not the end of all decision maker of what is complex and what isn't. But it is up to the developers to find the balance that fits for all players.

There is a reason some people still find Insanity yawn inducing while others can't even get past the starting level on Veteran.

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.

True, but sometimes when you have something that is only flawed by minor balancing issues, throwing out the baby with the bath water is a problem in itself too. That is why these threads persist.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 03:09 .

[tjzsf]

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.

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.


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"?

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

Point 1: Assuming equal skill, the one with the ME2 has a miniscule advantage over his ME1 counterpart. However, no sane commander would trade in his ME1 guns precisely because thermal clips reintroduces another dimension of logistics he has to deal with, the negatives of which far outweigh the tiny advantage of a few more rounds per minute. There's just too much strategic benefit to the ME1 gun than the ME2 - look again to the vietcong example, where never needing to reload is of far use than slightly increased rate of fire. And where, pray tell, did you go back to the overheat system when you ran out of clips? That never happened in ME2. All that happened was you ran out of clips and your gun became a stick.

Point 2: Your thing about punches and kicks actually support my argument better. If you're not rewarded equally for kicking or punching, why not use the one you're rewarded more equally for all the time? Whereas if you are rewarded equally, there is actually incentive to use the other one some of the time, if only to mix it up. If I can just snipe everything, there is indeed not a point to the other guns - if I was an Infiltrator. Even then, I'd still order my squadmates around because progressing faster is more important that carving more notches on my gun, and I'd still use powers because Incinerate on a Pyro is funny and cloaking gives me a damage boost. If I was a Soldier, I may want to do that - or I may just like spraying with an AR or getting close with a shotty, while shooting fireballs (god I miss Carnage) or concussive shots and elbowing geth in the face. If I'm a less gun-oriented class, a bunch of those guns aren't even available to me, so that's a moot point. But the overarching principle is, you should be maximizing the number of ways your players can legitimately play the single-player game, not limiting them.

Modifié par tjzsf, 30 mai 2011 - 03:17 .

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
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.

Ok, whats the difference in wanting to use a Shotgun and Sniper Rifle? Why would you use one over the other?

There is more to weapons the "just" the damage. You can make the Magnum a short range heavy hitting weapon (much like a shotgun) while making your normal pistol equal to across all distances. If you want to try to hit somebody with a Magnum 150 feet away (just an arbitrary number), you are going to have difficulty hitting him. While with the other pistol you can hit him with no issues.

Lets continue to balance it out.

Another way; The Magnum can only shot 9 rounds at a steady pace (or 6 rapidly) in a row before having to wait a short moment to cool off. The other pistol has less heat management issues and you can fire off a steady pacing shot (with even short bursts of rapid firing) and never worry. The Magnum has the potential to do more damage over all in the long term; but at the cost of each shot needing to be 100% accurate at a shorter range while the other pistol does marginally less, but can fire more endlessly, while hitting at a longer range.

Thus the player playstyle then dictates which weapon is "better" for them.

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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?

1) 5+2+9+3+6+4

2) 5+2*9-8/2

which one is more complex.
#1 only has 5 +, so thats fairly simple.. add add add.
#2 has only 4, but has a mix of +, * , - and /

Which formula is simpler? But wait.. how is the one with more variables less complicated?

[Tony Gunslinger]

tjzsf wrote...

Point 1: Assuming equal skill, the one with the ME2 has a miniscule advantage over his ME1 counterpart. However, no sane commander would trade in his ME1 guns precisely because thermal clips reintroduces another dimension of logistics he has to deal with, the negatives of which far outweigh the tiny advantage of a few more rounds per minute. There's just too much strategic benefit to the ME1 gun than the ME2 - look again to the vietcong example, where never needing to reload is of far use than slightly increased rate of fire. And where, pray tell, did you go back to the overheat system when you ran out of clips? That never happened in ME2. All that happened was you ran out of clips and your gun became a stick.

You didn't look at the post where I said that when you run out of themal clips, you revert back to the overheat system because thermal clips = heat sink.

Point 2: Your thing about punches and kicks actually support my argument better. If you're not rewarded equally for kicking or punching, why not use the one you're rewarded more equally for all the time? Whereas if you are rewarded equally, there is actually incentive to use the other one some of the time, if only to mix it up. If I can just snipe everything, there is indeed not a point to the other guns - if I was an Infiltrator. Even then, I'd still order my squadmates around because progressing faster is more important that carving more notches on my gun, and I'd still use powers because Incinerate on a Pyro is funny and cloaking gives me a damage boost. If I was a Soldier, I may want to do that - or I may just like spraying with an AR or getting close with a shotty, while shooting fireballs (god I miss Carnage) or concussive shots and elbowing geth in the face. If I'm a less gun-oriented class, a bunch of those guns aren't even available to me, so that's a moot point. But the overarching principle is, you should be maximizing the number of ways your players can legitimately play the single-player game, not limiting them.

You assume that kicking always rewards players, which is not true.

In ME2, some battles favor long distance fighting, some favor CQC, some are a mix in between. Also in ME2, there is a risk/reward system. Sniping is a low risk/low reward manuever. Shotgunning is a high risk/high reward maneuver. Using powers takes less skill than using guns, some powers are more effective at certain enemies than others. If you want to shotgun everything even though sniping would have been better, more power to you to take that challenge. Hell, you can even use the WIdow as a shotgun. Nobody is forcing or limiting you to do anything. Like I said, you're being challenged, but you're not accepting that challenge. If you want to be a specialist at one thing, then by definition you must be not very good at other things. If you want to be to able do everything, then you aren't the best at one particualr thing.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 30 mai 2011 - 03:39 .

[SalsaDMA]

tjzsf wrote...

Link between unlimited ammo for basic weapons and dumbed down nonexistent. Consult Battletech/MechWarrior for counterexample.

Except, that for your battletech comparison to make sense, this would mean you would line it up like:

Pistol/Hand cannon = Small laser
SMG = Small pulse laser
AR = Medium pulse laser
Shotgun = ER small laser
Sniper rifle = Large laser

Notice something? There is no differentation between medium pulse laser and medium pulse laser.
There IS differentation between the various assault rifles in ME.

Ofc, the fact that you take a system designed for simulating warfare using mobile customizable platforms and compare it to handweapons really is boggling. There's a reason that gaming systems usually use different systems for combat involving mobile platforms and 'man-to-man' combat.

I've also yet to try a gameadaption of the battletech system where I didn't feel some weapons were just plain superior to others and others just being literally junk to be sold at first chance, which further invalidates the desirability of it.

[The Spamming Troll]

this post is irrelevant.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 30 mai 2011 - 03:47 .

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
You didn't look at the post where I said that when you run out of themal clips, you revert back to the overheat system because thermal clips = heat sink.

Noo.....
Thermal clips is a type of heat sink; but they replace the passive heatsink system from ME1. In ME2 world, the passive system is gone, replaced by the need of the active user replacement thermal clip system.

The two (and again by ME2 design and "retcon lore") are two different systems and do not coexist together in a single system.

Thus if you use thermal clips and run out, your weapon can not dissipate heat and you are left with a glorified club until you find more thermal clips, or have a work bench to change out the system (or use another weapon type and up that weapons thermal clips - which is the behavior of ME2, run out of AR ammo, use your Pistol or SMG)

[Murmillos]

SalsaDMA wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Link between unlimited ammo for basic weapons and dumbed down nonexistent. Consult Battletech/MechWarrior for counterexample.

Except, that for your battletech comparison to make sense, this would mean you would line it up like:

Pistol/Hand cannon = Small laser
SMG = Small pulse laser
AR = Medium pulse laser
Shotgun = ER small laser
Sniper rifle = Large laser

Notice something? There is no differentation between medium pulse laser and medium pulse laser.
There IS differentation between the various assault rifles in ME.

Ofc, the fact that you take a system designed for simulating warfare using mobile customizable platforms and compare it to handweapons really is boggling. There's a reason that gaming systems usually use different systems for combat involving mobile platforms and 'man-to-man' combat.

I've also yet to try a game adaption of the battletech system where I didn't feel some weapons were just plain superior to others and others just being literally junk to be sold at first chance, which further invalidates the desirability of it.

The problem in which you are trying to make up here, is that you are trying to fit each laser into a clarification of a personal weapon; which doesn't work.

And in fact, there were also differences in the "medium pulse lasers" - if we use the balance that medium pulse lasers have a specific range, that is better the small, but lesser then heavy..; they would have as much as a difference as comparable to ME2 AR's. Rapid pulse low damage, slower pulse and higher damage. High damage pulse with high heat, low pulse damage with low heat. The differences were staggering.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 04:02 .

[Bozorgmehr]

tjzsf wrote...

Proposition that unlimited ammo causes catastrophic dumbing down of gameplay prepoesterous.

Can you explain why TAKING AWAY something isn't dumbing down. If you take away inventory, you simplify things - If you take away money, you simplify things - if you take away X, you simplify things - if you take away ammo, you simplify things.

What exactly do you not understand about this; X-1 is ALWAYS less than X - if you can prove otherwise you're the winner of all Nobel Prizes of the 21th century - good luck.

[Ahglock]

SalsaDMA wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Link between unlimited ammo for basic weapons and dumbed down nonexistent. Consult Battletech/MechWarrior for counterexample.

Except, that for your battletech comparison to make sense, this would mean you would line it up like:

Pistol/Hand cannon = Small laser
SMG = Small pulse laser
AR = Medium pulse laser
Shotgun = ER small laser
Sniper rifle = Large laser

Notice something? There is no differentation between medium pulse laser and medium pulse laser.
There IS differentation between the various assault rifles in ME.

Ofc, the fact that you take a system designed for simulating warfare using mobile customizable platforms and compare it to handweapons really is boggling. There's a reason that gaming systems usually use different systems for combat involving mobile platforms and 'man-to-man' combat.

I've also yet to try a gameadaption of the battletech system where I didn't feel some weapons were just plain superior to others and others just being literally junk to be sold at first chance, which further invalidates the desirability of it.

There are more energy weapons in mechwarrior than lasers, so you could have added in some of those on the various tiers to create differences like flamers in the shotgun category.  But different system is different system.  Also I will say the enrgy weapons are easier in mechwarrior at least on the pen and paper level.  Ammo and purchasing ammo is a pain in the ass to keep track of, if one of our players in our bi-weekly game didn;t enjoy that kind of micro management we would only have energy weapons.  Megamek keeps track of the heat for me, it doe snot keep track of my resuply costs.  

For the main topic: But in shooters I disagree with any assumption that ammo is superior.  Heat management is another variable just like ammo is and it has similar effects.  It doesn't make the guns more versatile on its face, everything ammo does heat can do just as well.  Just because the ME1 system did not do it in a great fashion does not mean it can't be done.  The best thing ME2 added to guns was firing rates, that is where the real difference lies between the systems and the guns in ME2.  

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

Ok, whats the difference in wanting to use a Shotgun and Sniper Rifle? Why would you use one over the other?

There is more to weapons the "just" the damage. You can make the Magnum a short range heavy hitting weapon (much like a shotgun) while making your normal pistol equal to across all distances. If you want to try to hit somebody with a Magnum 150 feet away (just an arbitrary number), you are going to have difficulty hitting him. While with the other pistol you can hit him with no issues.

Lets continue to balance it out.

Another way; The Magnum can only shot 9 rounds at a steady pace (or 6 rapidly) in a row before having to wait a short moment to cool off. The other pistol has less heat management issues and you can fire off a steady pacing shot (with even short bursts of rapid firing) and never worry. The Magnum has the potential to do more damage over all in the long term; but at the cost of each shot needing to be 100% accurate at a shorter range while the other pistol does marginally less, but can fire more endlessly, while hitting at a longer range.

Thus the player playstyle then dictates which weapon is "better" for them.

So you're gimping the Magnum into a quasi shotgun? I don't see what this has got to do with ammo - you can do all that WITH ammo too. It also doesn't help at all. You turn the pistol into a SMG and the Magnum into a Shotgun. Why would I use the Magnum if I can use a shotgun which is better, or if the Magnum is better, why would I bother with shotguns. (Pistol and SMG can be put in place of Magnum and shotgun).

You, again, are using range, RoF, burst-fire, accuracy and so forth - which has nothing to do with ammo, ammo is just another variable you can add to that list. Do you understand that taking away accuracy (instead of ammo) would gimp the weapon system? If all weapons have the same accurary you cannot use that feature to diferentiate weapons, or can you?

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Proposition that unlimited ammo causes catastrophic dumbing down of gameplay prepoesterous.

Can you explain why TAKING AWAY something isn't dumbing down. If you take away inventory, you simplify things - If you take away money, you simplify things - if you take away X, you simplify things - if you take away ammo, you simplify things.

What exactly do you not understand about this; X-1 is ALWAYS less than X - if you can prove otherwise you're the winner of all Nobel Prizes of the 21th century - good luck.

What don't you understand that you are replacing "ammo" with "heat management"? We are not advocating for weapons that never heat up, never have a downside or anything like that.

Ammo is limited in the number you can carry and shoot in a given time until you pick up more. If you miss to many shots and don't kill your target, you are required to reload more ammo until you can shoot again.

Heat management is the number of rounds you can shoot in a given time period, until your weapon cools off. If you miss to many shots and don't kill your target, you are left waiting for your weapon to cool down before you can shoot again.

You are trading one aspect for another aspect. Thus not taking anything way, nor adding anything. So if nothing is taken away, then it cannot be dumbed down?

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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?

1) 5+2+9+3+6+4

2) 5+2*9-8/2

which one is more complex.
#1 only has 5 +, so thats fairly simple.. add add add.
#2 has only 4, but has a mix of +, * , - and /

Which formula is simpler? But wait.. how is the one with more variables less complicated?

You don't know the difference between variables and constants - I rest my case, it's hopeless arguing with someone who doesn't understand even the most fundamental principles of math.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 30 mai 2011 - 04:20 .

[JayhartRIC]

Murmillos wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Proposition that unlimited ammo causes catastrophic dumbing down of gameplay prepoesterous.

Can you explain why TAKING AWAY something isn't dumbing down. If you take away inventory, you simplify things - If you take away money, you simplify things - if you take away X, you simplify things - if you take away ammo, you simplify things.

What exactly do you not understand about this; X-1 is ALWAYS less than X - if you can prove otherwise you're the winner of all Nobel Prizes of the 21th century - good luck.

What don't you understand that you are replacing "ammo" with "heat management"? We are not advocating for weapons that never heat up, never have a downside or anything like that.

Ammo is limited in the number you can carry and shoot in a given time until you pick up more. If you miss to many shots and don't kill your target, you are required to reload more ammo until you can shoot again.

Heat management is the number of rounds you can shoot in a given time period, until your weapon cools off. If you miss to many shots and don't kill your target, you are left waiting for your weapon to cool down before you can shoot again.

You are trading one aspect for another aspect. Thus not taking anything way, nor adding anything. So if nothing is taken away, then it cannot be dumbed down?

You are taking away the fact that you can run out completely.

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Ok, whats the difference in wanting to use a Shotgun and Sniper Rifle? Why would you use one over the other?

There is more to weapons the "just" the damage. You can make the Magnum a short range heavy hitting weapon (much like a shotgun) while making your normal pistol equal to across all distances. If you want to try to hit somebody with a Magnum 150 feet away (just an arbitrary number), you are going to have difficulty hitting him. While with the other pistol you can hit him with no issues.

Lets continue to balance it out.

Another way; The Magnum can only shot 9 rounds at a steady pace (or 6 rapidly) in a row before having to wait a short moment to cool off. The other pistol has less heat management issues and you can fire off a steady pacing shot (with even short bursts of rapid firing) and never worry. The Magnum has the potential to do more damage over all in the long term; but at the cost of each shot needing to be 100% accurate at a shorter range while the other pistol does marginally less, but can fire more endlessly, while hitting at a longer range.

Thus the player playstyle then dictates which weapon is "better" for them.

So you're gimping the Magnum into a quasi shotgun? I don't see what this has got to do with ammo - you can do all that WITH ammo too. It also doesn't help at all. You turn the pistol into a SMG and the Magnum into a Shotgun. Why would I use the Magnum if I can use a shotgun which is better, or if the Magnum is better, why would I bother with shotguns. (Pistol and SMG can be put in place of Magnum and shotgun).

You, again, are using range, RoF, burst-fire, accuracy and so forth - which has nothing to do with ammo, ammo is just another variable you can add to that list. Do you understand that taking away accuracy (instead of ammo) would gimp the weapon system? If all weapons have the same accurary you cannot use that feature to diferentiate weapons, or can you?

Yes, you are finally getting it. You might be finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel!!

Because ammo alone does not make the weapon. Thats what I'm getting at! AMMO ALONE DOES NOT MAKE A WEAPON!
What makes a weapon unique is its accuracy, RoF, range & burst-fire capability.
Heat management is just another way to manage "ammo".

If all weapons have the same accuracy, RoF, burst-fire capability, damage, changing to an ammo system isn't going to make a lick of difference in suddenly differentiating them. You just would be replacing ammo instead of waiting for your weapon to cool down.

ME1 weapons were simplistic copy and past with slightly increasing stats. I get that. But suddenly adding ammo didn't make all the weapons suddenly different. No, it was done by actually changing their RoF & burst-fire capability. Adding ammo didn't do that; making the weapons different did that!

[Bozorgmehr]

Ahglock wrote...

For the main topic: But in shooters I disagree with any assumption that ammo is superior.  Heat management is another variable just like ammo is and it has similar effects.  It doesn't make the guns more versatile on its face, everything ammo does heat can do just as well.  Just because the ME1 system did not do it in a great fashion does not mean it can't be done.  The best thing ME2 added to guns was firing rates, that is where the real difference lies between the systems and the guns in ME2.

Heat management is heat management; it has nothing to do with ammo - they are completely different things. Being completely different also means they cannot achieve similar effects; you can have an overheat system with and without ammo. Heat management limits the amount of shots you can fire in any given time; ammo limits the TOTAL ammount of shot you CAN fire.

Murmillos wrote...

What don't you understand that you are replacing "ammo" with "heat management"? We are not advocating for weapons that never heat up, never have a downside or anything like that.

You are not replacing ammo, you remove it - how hard is it to understand the difference between apples and oranges.

A ME2 Widow fires a shot and has to reload; a ME1 Widow fires a shot and has to cooldown. Both versions can use a limited ammo system. How does heat-management replaces ammo here?

[Murmillos]

JayhartRIC wrote...
You are taking away the fact that you can run out completely.

I thought ME2 had so many clips laying around, it didn't matter as you couldn't move more then 5 feet with out tripping over one unless you are one of those dirty Infiltrator Snipers? Bastards shouldn't have any SR ammo at all...

[Ahglock]

JayhartRIC wrote...

You are taking away the fact that you can run out completely.

And replacing it with full overheats which take lots of time to cool down. 

[JayhartRIC]

Murmillos wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

Ok, whats the difference in wanting to use a Shotgun and Sniper Rifle? Why would you use one over the other?

There is more to weapons the "just" the damage. You can make the Magnum a short range heavy hitting weapon (much like a shotgun) while making your normal pistol equal to across all distances. If you want to try to hit somebody with a Magnum 150 feet away (just an arbitrary number), you are going to have difficulty hitting him. While with the other pistol you can hit him with no issues.

Lets continue to balance it out.

Another way; The Magnum can only shot 9 rounds at a steady pace (or 6 rapidly) in a row before having to wait a short moment to cool off. The other pistol has less heat management issues and you can fire off a steady pacing shot (with even short bursts of rapid firing) and never worry. The Magnum has the potential to do more damage over all in the long term; but at the cost of each shot needing to be 100% accurate at a shorter range while the other pistol does marginally less, but can fire more endlessly, while hitting at a longer range.

Thus the player playstyle then dictates which weapon is "better" for them.

So you're gimping the Magnum into a quasi shotgun? I don't see what this has got to do with ammo - you can do all that WITH ammo too. It also doesn't help at all. You turn the pistol into a SMG and the Magnum into a Shotgun. Why would I use the Magnum if I can use a shotgun which is better, or if the Magnum is better, why would I bother with shotguns. (Pistol and SMG can be put in place of Magnum and shotgun).

You, again, are using range, RoF, burst-fire, accuracy and so forth - which has nothing to do with ammo, ammo is just another variable you can add to that list. Do you understand that taking away accuracy (instead of ammo) would gimp the weapon system? If all weapons have the same accurary you cannot use that feature to diferentiate weapons, or can you?

Yes, you are finally getting it. You might be finally seeing the light at the end of the tunnel!!

Because ammo alone does not make the weapon. Thats what I'm getting at! AMMO ALONE DOES NOT MAKE A WEAPON!
What makes a weapon unique is its accuracy, RoF, range & burst-fire capability.
Heat management is just another way to manage "ammo".

If all weapons have the same accuracy, RoF, burst-fire capability, damage, changing to an ammo system isn't going to make a lick of difference in suddenly differentiating them. You just would be replacing ammo instead of waiting for your weapon to cool down.

ME1 weapons were simplistic copy and past with slightly increasing stats. I get that. But suddenly adding ammo didn't make all the weapons suddenly different. No, it was done by actually changing their RoF & burst-fire capability. Adding ammo didn't do that; making the weapons different did that!

But adding ammo adds an additional variable.  You can have two guns with the same stats but have one better by having more ammo.  I imagine larger thermal clips will be one of the mods in ME3.

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Heat management is heat management; it has nothing to do with ammo - they are completely different things. Being completely different also means they cannot achieve similar effects; you can have an overheat system with and without ammo. Heat management limits the amount of shots you can fire in any given time; ammo limits the TOTAL ammount of shot you CAN fire.

*sigh* would you quit arguing semantics between the two systems.

Between ME1 and ME2, they are the same thing - They are the system which limits the amount of shots a player can shoot within a given time frame. We all know in real perfect world they are different, but since we are using it in the context of the differences of ME1 and ME2, its the same thing.

ME2 still uses "heat", but in the context of it looks, smells, feels, plays, acts, pretends as ammo.

If you are a decent shooter, heat/ammo is not an issue in ME2.  Except maybe for those whom use SR.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Murmillos wrote...

What don't you understand that you are replacing "ammo" with "heat management"? We are not advocating for weapons that never heat up, never have a downside or anything like that.

Ammo is limited in the number you can carry and shoot in a given time until you pick up more. If you miss to many shots and don't kill your target, you are required to reload more ammo until you can shoot again.

Heat management is the number of rounds you can shoot in a given time period, until your weapon cools off. If you miss to many shots and don't kill your target, you are left waiting for your weapon to cool down before you can shoot again.

You are trading one aspect for another aspect. Thus not taking anything way, nor adding anything. So if nothing is taken away, then it cannot be dumbed down?

'heat management' doesn't replace 'ammo', it replaces 'ammo clip size'. heat management gets rid of 'ammo capacity'

These are all the variables going into gun a design:

1) Damage
2) Rate of Fire
3) Firing mechanism (auto/semi/burst/bolt action)
4) Ammo clip size (can be substituted by heat management)
5) Ammo capacity (heat management deletes this)
6) Accuracy
7) Recoil
8) Reload (can be substitued by heat management)

- When ammo capacity is eliminated, and your goal is to keep all weapons releveant, you run into problems because certain guns are clearly designed to be better but only for a shorter time. Unlimited ammo is a limitation in a balanced design.

- It you don't care about balancing weapons, then you can design any weapon you like.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 30 mai 2011 - 04:28 .

[Bozorgmehr]

JayhartRIC wrote...

But adding ammo adds an additional variable.  You can have two guns with the same stats but have one better by having more ammo.  I imagine larger thermal clips will be one of the mods in ME3.

Somehow, some folks out here cannot understand that. It's good to know there are at least some people who understand ammo is an extra variabe to use like the others

[Murmillos]

JayhartRIC wrote...
But adding ammo adds an additional variable.  You can have two guns with the same stats but have one better by having more ammo.  I imagine larger thermal clips will be one of the mods in ME3.

Only if ammo is limited; So then really what is the real diffence between the two weapons if you can carry more rounds for weapon X if getting more ammo isn't an issue.

Unless you are a horrible bad shot or somebody who camps a spot for too long, AMMO is not an issue in ME2..  or hell it isn't even really because many spots have the ever regenerating ammo spawns. Wait 15 seconds and a new clip shows up out of thin air.