791 réponses à ce sujet

[Ahglock]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

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?

In real life they might be different in games they are not.  Outside of survivial horror games you have enough access to ammo that there is no real limit to the total ammount of shots you can fire.  That is just how shooters work, heat management systems in games kind of accepts that fact.  About the only bad thing that happens in shooters is oh noes you have to pick up the AK47 instead of using your current gun.   Now if that one in a million chance you have an ammo problem hits some psychological point for you where it adds tension or whatever fine.  But it really on a practical level is no different than heat management.  

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
- 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.[b] Unlimited ammo is a limitation in a balanced design.

Except in ME2 case, you either wait for the ammo clip to respawn or move 5 feet and you have more ammo. Thus negating the "ammo capacity" for the better weapons argument. Its not like I have to look for a specific type of ammo for my better weapons, no I just need another thermal clip and I got the ammo I need - 100% of the time.

Unless you are somebody who likes using SR a lot, or camps in one spot for ever and never moves (which typically SR users do), only does ammo capacity matter.

If if this whole debate boils down to ONLY ammo capacity being the only difference and ME2 doesn't require you to scrounge for ammo as it is plentiful enough, then why does all this ammo capacity debate matter when getting all the ammo you need is easy to come by?

Maybe only have SR's work off the thermal clip method - as it doesn't seem to matter for any other weapon within the game.

[Bozorgmehr]

Ahglock wrote...

In real life they might be different in games they are not.  Outside of survivial horror games you have enough access to ammo that there is no real limit to the total ammount of shots you can fire.  That is just how shooters work, heat management systems in games kind of accepts that fact.  About the only bad thing that happens in shooters is oh noes you have to pick up the AK47 instead of using your current gun.   Now if that one in a million chance you have an ammo problem hits some psychological point for you where it adds tension or whatever fine.  But it really on a practical level is no different than heat management.

I don't know which games you are referring to, but I can't think of many - it's also completely irrelevant to the point - or are you also claiming that the crappy way in which ME1 used the heat-system rules out the possibility to improve it?

Ammo is hugely important in every shooter; Quake, Unreal, Crysis, Bioshock, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, Max Payne, Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honor, Gears of War etc etc. Ammo also play a major part in other games, like GTA, Dragon Age, Oblivion, FO, The Witcher. I can keep listing about 80% of all games ever created which have used some sort of fire-mechanism. I have no idea where you get the idea that ammo is more or less redundant in most games. It isn't, only the worst weapons had a lot of ammo, the good ones always had limitations. The question how well ammo has been implemented is another, but every shooter uses it to add more weapons into the mix without destroying balance.

Modifié par Bozorgmehr, 30 mai 2011 - 04:49 .

[SalsaDMA]

Ahglock wrote...
  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.  

Well ammo weapons in that game also had the disadvantage of being a potential weak point where you had your ammo storage. I lost a good many mechs to ammo detonations because my autocannon20 ammo went kablewey:crying:

Anyways, the point is, it's an entirely different system with different considerations. Prob better not go more int hat direction lest we get horrible offtopic

Modifié par SalsaDMA, 30 mai 2011 - 04:53 .

[88mphSlayer]

it's probably worth asking but... what's generating so much heat in these guns to begin with that firing 20 rounds (or sometimes, just 1) requires you to eject a heat sink? that's some SERIOUS heat, shouldn't the rest of those guns be falling apart and losing accuracy? no IRL gun today requires replacing barrels or etc. after firing 20 rounds, can we get some liquid nitrogen cooling systems on these guns?

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 30 mai 2011 - 05:00 .

[SalsaDMA]

88mphSlayer wrote...

it's probably worth asking but... what's generating so much heat in these guns to begin with that firing 20 rounds (or sometimes, just 1) requires you to eject a heat sink? that's some SERIOUS heat, shouldn't the rest of those guns be falling apart and losing accuracy? no IRL gun today requires replacing barrels or etc. after firing 20 rounds, can we get some liquid nitrogen cooling systems on these guns?

You never tried using a LMG?

Swapping barrels was part of the military education regarding those when I were in the army.

And ME weapons fire projectiles flying at quite a bit more speed than contemporary weapons. I'm sure someone can link the picture of a railgun firing to show you the amount of heat that kind of thing releases...

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...
Ammo is hugely important in every shooter; Quake, Unreal, Crysis, Bioshock, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, Max Payne, Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honor, Gears of War etc etc. Ammo also play a major part in other games, like GTA, Dragon Age, Oblivion, FO, The Witcher. I can keep listing about 80% of all games ever created which have used some sort of fire-mechanism. I have no idea where you get the idea that ammo is more or less redundant in most games. It isn't, only the worst weapons had a lot of ammo, the good ones always had limitations. The question how well ammo has been implemented is another, but every shooter uses it to add more weapons into the mix without destroying balance.

The answer your statement, most games use ammo because the game is either based off current period, or even in the sci-fi games, it was just done because thats how gamers "expect" their guns to work. You have weapon, which requires ammo, which requries you to seek and find ammo to use.

I don't think ammo has anything to do with balance and just more the status quo. That was the system, thats how it worked, thats how people expected it to work so why mess with something that worked.

If ammo is so important and has been a staple of gaming for the past 20 years, then why did ME1 come out with a heat management system?
Was it because they wanted to be "wrong" and have no "game balance"?

Or perhaps they attempted something new and got marred by imbalance? I mean, they took a huge risk in trying something new for a genre they never had any experience with either. It bit them hard on the ass and instead of showing how innovative and creative they have been in the past, they went with the safe bet ammo system - since thats how everybody expects weapons to work.

You can't blame them, but I'm not going to not call them out for mangling up the lore in the process.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 05:14 .

[SalsaDMA]

I'll repeat again: heat management is not 'new'.
It's just another name for an energy management used by weapons in older games.

[JayhartRIC]

JayhartRIC wrote...
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.

I think this is an acceptable explanation for the change and it gels with some of the in-game weapon descriptions like the Eviscerator.

[Tony Gunslinger]

Murmillos wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
- 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.

Except in ME2 case, you either wait for the ammo clip to respawn or move 5 feet and you have more ammo. Thus negating the "ammo capacity" for the better weapons argument. Its not like I have to look for a specific type of ammo for my better weapons, no I just need another thermal clip and I got the ammo I need - 100% of the time.

Unless you are somebody who likes using SR a lot, or camps in one spot for ever and never moves (which typically SR users do), only does ammo capacity matter.

If if this whole debate boils down to ONLY ammo capacity being the only difference and ME2 doesn't require you to scrounge for ammo as it is plentiful enough, then [b]why does all this ammo capacity debate matter when getting all the ammo you need is easy to come by?

Maybe only have SR's work off the thermal clip method - as it doesn't seem to matter for any other weapon within the game.

Because limited resources is a motivation in every system. Just because you can get ammo easily or not does not negate the possiblity of running out of ammo.

If healthpacks are unlimited, why not use it all the time?
If you take out the possibility of dying, why bother hiding behind cover?
If oil is unlimited, why would be people fight for it?
If gold is unliimited, why should it be expensive?

It's human nature to act of out self interest, and in a system with no limitations on a certain resource, people will eventually exploit it, and undermines players from cooperating with the system to accomplish the shared goals. You can't expect people to 'act out of good faith' and refrain from constantly gulping health potions if they're unlimited.

And yet, the boundaries of your freedom is not a hard line, where you're forced to do something against your will. There's a grey area where you feel the pressure to alter your behavior if you want to survive, you're given chances to make decisions based on the options available to you. and that grey area lies in the difficulty setting, the ammo clips, your power cooldown, your health bar, etc.

[Ahglock]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

In real life they might be different in games they are not.  Outside of survivial horror games you have enough access to ammo that there is no real limit to the total ammount of shots you can fire.  That is just how shooters work, heat management systems in games kind of accepts that fact.  About the only bad thing that happens in shooters is oh noes you have to pick up the AK47 instead of using your current gun.   Now if that one in a million chance you have an ammo problem hits some psychological point for you where it adds tension or whatever fine.  But it really on a practical level is no different than heat management.

I don't know which games you are referring to, but I can't think of many - it's also completely irrelevant to the point - or are you also claiming that the crappy way in which ME1 used the heat-system rules out the possibility to improve it?

Ammo is hugely important in every shooter; Quake, Unreal, Crysis, Bioshock, Duke Nukem, Wolfenstein, Max Payne, Battlefield, CoD, Medal of Honor, Gears of War etc etc. Ammo also play a major part in other games, like GTA, Dragon Age, Oblivion, FO, The Witcher. I can keep listing about 80% of all games ever created which have used some sort of fire-mechanism. I have no idea where you get the idea that ammo is more or less redundant in most games. It isn't, only the worst weapons had a lot of ammo, the good ones always had limitations. The question how well ammo has been implemented is another, but every shooter uses it to add more weapons into the mix without destroying balance.

If by hugely important you mean I blaze away recklessly in all those games and never run out of bullets sure, it is hugely important.  There is a uzi or whatever on every guy you kill, the guns outside of a small handful of super guns are close enough that it doesn't matter that you switch from one assault rifle to the next.  You can pretend there is some huge balancing act happening all due to an ammo system and only ammo can do it, but I think you are just deluding yourself.  Sniper Rifles are about the only gun that is limited in ammo and is distinct from other categories of weapons.  And many games allow you to carry multiple main weapons so the sniper rifles ammo limit is barely a limit.  Oh noes for those guys who are close I have to use the assault rifle of 500 bullets, I don't have the "ammo" to waste with my sniper rifle of doom.   Sure they died almost as quickly with the assault riflle as they would have if I shot them with the sniper rifle of doom, but like that .1 second is balance man.  Virtually every other gun shoots roughly the same and or has no real ammo issue.  

[Murmillos]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
Because limited resources is a motivation in every system. Just because you can get ammo easily or not does not negate the possiblity of running out of ammo.

Only if the system works, in ME2, other then the SR and heavy weapons, it doesn't. Not a single bit.

If healthpacks are unlimited, why not use it all the time? what?
If you take out the possibility of dying, why bother hiding behind cover? ME1 is a clear example of this
If oil is unlimited, why would be people fight for it? again.. what?  Oil is limited, but we keep finding more, but in harder and harder to get places
If gold is unliimited, why should it be expensive? Like oil, god is limited, but we finding more in hard and harder to get places

It's human nature to act of out self interest, and in a system with no limitations on a certain resource, people will eventually exploit it, and undermines players from cooperating with the system to accomplish the shared goals. You can't expect people to 'act out of good faith' and refrain from constantly gulping health potions if they're unlimited.

This may may explain the double frictionless mod issue...

And yet, the boundaries of your freedom is not a hard line, where you're forced to do something against your will. There's a grey area where you feel the pressure to alter your behavior if you want to survive, you're given chances to make decisions based on the options available to you. and that grey area lies in the difficulty setting, the ammo clips, your power cooldown, your health bar, etc.

The only thing that change my play style was the major decrease in effectiveness of my shields.
The power cool down had a secondary affect on my play style.
The limited ammo didn't affect it (because it was "unlimited" in quantity to be picked up at ease).

If I'm holding 6 marbles in my hand in a room with 1000 marbles at my feet and I toss those 6 marbles away, am I now marble less? We can debate to which metatechnicality to if I have marbles or no marbles - Yet this is exactly what the ME2 ammo system feels like.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 05:50 .

[Sgt Stryker]

SalsaDMA wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

it's probably worth asking but... what's generating so much heat in these guns to begin with that firing 20 rounds (or sometimes, just 1) requires you to eject a heat sink? that's some SERIOUS heat, shouldn't the rest of those guns be falling apart and losing accuracy? no IRL gun today requires replacing barrels or etc. after firing 20 rounds, can we get some liquid nitrogen cooling systems on these guns?

You never tried using a LMG?

Swapping barrels was part of the military education regarding those when I were in the army.

And ME weapons fire projectiles flying at quite a bit more speed than contemporary weapons. I'm sure someone can link the picture of a railgun firing to show you the amount of heat that kind of thing releases...

I'll do even better and link to a video. Here goes....



Granted, this projectile is about the size of an artillery shell, while ME weapons fire pellets no bigger than a grain of sand, but you get the picture.

[Phaedon]

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

Thermal clips are not, by themselves, lore breaking.  

Good.

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.

Look. Ammo is used, and you need to buy new ammo at some point.

I don't see how any of the factions in ME2 could go around with a 2-year-old clip. They would have to refill their stocks, and that they would do with the new and cheaper technolodgy.

There was little to no transition time, as I would have expected for the introduction of a new feature to weapons technology

As dramatic as this statement may sound, it is incorrect in both assumptions.
a) 2 years are enough transition time.
It is not a new feature, and not exactly a new type of product. It's a new product. It makes no sense to see mercs with 2 year old ammo.

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.

And who exactly would do that?
The merc companies who seem to have elements that are better equipped than your average C-sec officer? Nope.

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.  

This again?
Every time you shoot, your heatsink is consumed a little. If someone is serious enough to use an assault rifle, then you can be certain that they won't go around carrying used clips.

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.

No.

The codex:
a) Never says anything about retrofitting.
Says that the new heatsinks burn up more quickly, therefore, they are made from cheaper materials, and therefore, they are cheaper.

Modifié par Phaedon, 30 mai 2011 - 06:06 .

[Murmillos]

Phaedon wrote...

The codex:
a) Never says anything about retrofitting.
Says that the new heatsinks burn up more quickly, therefore, they are made from cheaper materials, and therefore, they are cheaper.

Would you quit making things up to try to make a point. It only makes you and your point weaker because you cannot argue with the limited (and correct) facts at hand. Trying to strengthen your argument with made up info benefits nobody.

From the Wiki (from the codex entry)

Modern infantry weapons are micro-scaled mass accelerators, using mass-reducing fields and magnetic force to propel miniature slugs to lethal speeds. Nearly every gun on the battlefield is laden with features, from targeting auto-assists to projectile shavers that can generate thousands of rounds of ammunition from a small, internal block of metal.

It was long thought that personal weapons had plateaued in performance, but the geth proved all theories wrong. 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 waste heat, or pause as their weapons vented.

To eliminate this inefficiency, the geth adopted detachable heat sinks known as thermal clips. While organic arms manufacturers were initially doubtful this would produce a net gain, a well-trained soldier can eject and swap thermal clips in under a second. Faced with superior enemy firepower, organic armies soon followed the geth's lead and today's battlefields are littered with these thermal clips.

Nothing about being cheaper or anything crap. Only thing is says is clear as day; detectable heat-sinks known as thermal clips which can be swapped in under a second (or 1.5 seconds for ME2).

So the only thing we can assume out of that, and with the mechanics of ME2, is that the auto cooling system has been replaced with a unit that can accept thermal clips which is then ejected when at max terminal capacity, in which a new thermal clip is needed to continue firing.

And about a); retrofitted is provided should you get the Mattock rifles.
From the Wiki (copied from the email you get from TIM)

Mattock Heavy Rifle
Shepard,

Miranda has been working with EDI on crunching battle telemetry numbers, and EDI had an interesting thought. She suggested we may be overlooking older, proven technologies in an effort to provide you with the state of art. Normally I wouldn't give much credence to the idea, but when an AI criticizes you for loving high-tech, it gives one pause to consider.

With that in mind, I delivered a few heavy rifles, the Mattocks, to the Normandy. They've been modified for thermal clips, but the rest of the rifle should be the old, reliable gun that colonist militias have been using for decades. Good hunting.

Modified / retrofited. Same word. It means to changed or altered; thus if the weapon is still the same except for the heat management system - then yes, changing out the system appears to be an vaild option.




You know what, since water cooling my PC is so "yesterday" I just replaced it with thermal clips that I have to swap
out when my PC is turned on. If I don't replace the thermal clips in time, the PC shuts off to prevent itself from frying up. I'm telling you when I'm playing a graphics intensive game, I'm having to replace the thermal clip every couple of minutes. I've never seen better more realistic graphics in my life.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 06:33 .

[Gatt9]

Phaedon wrote...

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

Thermal clips are not, by themselves, lore breaking.  

Good.

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.

Look. Ammo is used, and you need to buy new ammo at some point.

I don't see how any of the factions in ME2 could go around with a 2-year-old clip. They would have to refill their stocks, and that they would do with the new and cheaper technolodgy.

There was little to no transition time, as I would have expected for the introduction of a new feature to weapons technology

As dramatic as this statement may sound, it is incorrect in both assumptions.
a) 2 years are enough transition time.
It is not a new feature, and not exactly a new type of product. It's a new product. It makes no sense to see mercs with 2 year old ammo.

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.

And who exactly would do that?
The merc companies who seem to have elements that are better equipped than your average C-sec officer? Nope.

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.  

This again?
Every time you shoot, your heatsink is consumed a little. If someone is serious enough to use an assault rifle, then you can be certain that they won't go around carrying used clips.

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.

No.

The codex:
a) Never says anything about retrofitting.
Says that the new heatsinks burn up more quickly, therefore, they are made from cheaper materials, and therefore, they are cheaper.

In addition to what the guy above me said...

...It makes no sense to see all mercs with brand new weaponry.  People don't go out and buy new weapons every time something new comes out.  Especially when these new weapons have the exact same damage profiles as the old ones,  because seriously,  these new weapons aren't killing anything faster than they did in ME.  So why exactly would every single person in the universe have gone out and bought one? 

Even the Collectors bought them apparently,  which is pretty ridiculous considering they don't use weapons from the known races.  I'm a little confused about why the Geth adopted them too,  since they already had something superior,  why exactly did they retrofit all of their weapons to inferior standards?  Why are they on Jacob's Dad's planet,  didn't he crash 8 years before they were invented?

It's all nonsensical,  and there's no "Lore" way to explain it. 

That said,  Ammo in an RPG doesn't bother me,  though I'm firmly convinced ME2's method is completely pointless since they never use it to heighten gameplay.  But honestly,  trying to defend it as rationale given all the enourmous plotholes I can't understand.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

There was little to no transition time, as I would have expected for the introduction of a new feature to weapons technology

As dramatic as this statement may sound, it is incorrect in both assumptions.
a) 2 years are enough transition time.
It is not a new feature, and not exactly a new type of product. It's a new product. It makes no sense to see mercs with 2 year old ammo.

a)  Your assumption.  My assumption is different.

Heat sinks =/= ammo

From the codex:

The ammo magazine is a simple block of metal. The gun's internal computer calculates the mass needed to reach the target based on distance, gravity, and atmospheric pressure, then shears off an appropriate sized slug from the block. A single block can supply thousands of rounds, making ammo a non-issue during any engagement.

Yes the blocks need to be replaced eventually, but they have nothing at all to do with heat management.

And who exactly would do that? The merc companies who seem to have elements that are better equipped than your average C-sec officer? Nope.

Vorcha?  Blood Pack cannon fodder?  Freelancers?  Isolated worlds?

  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.  

This again?

You asked.  You only have yourself to blame for this one   

Every time you shoot, your heatsink is consumed a little. If someone is serious enough to use an assault rifle, then you can be certain that they won't go around carrying used clips.

Are we talking about heat sinks here or thermal clips?  Or ammo blocks?

No.

The codex:
a) Never says anything about retrofitting.
Says that the new heatsinks burn up more quickly, therefore, they are made from cheaper materials, and therefore, they are cheaper.

Here's what the codex has about the description of thermal clips and what they're made of:

"detachable heat sinks" 

Anything else about what they're made of, how easily that can replace old heat sinks, whether they're recyclable or not, how cheap they are,  is purely speculation.  It doesn't even say if they can be vented or not.  Unless there's more dialogue or codex entries out there, or waiting in the wings of ME3, that;'s all there is.  You interpreted it one way.  I did another way.

[Phaedon]

Gatt9 wrote...
In addition to what the guy above me said...

...It makes no sense to see all mercs with brand new weaponry.  People don't go out and buy new weapons every time something new comes out.  Especially when these new weapons have the exact same damage profiles as the old ones,  because seriously,  these new weapons aren't killing anything faster than they did in ME.  So why exactly would every single person in the universe have gone out and bought one?  

Repetition much?
The weapons are the same, they just bought different "ammo" clips.

Even the Collectors bought them apparently,  which is pretty ridiculous considering they don't use weapons from the known races.  I'm a little confused about why the Geth adopted them too,  since they already had something superior,  why exactly did they retrofit all of their weapons to inferior standards?  Why are they on Jacob's Dad's planet,  didn't he crash 8 years before they were invented?

And here we go again, is there seriously no argument that has been answered before?
Tell me, what's the connection of the Geth and the Collectors? They use Reaper technolodgy that's right.
For the 5155st time, as the codex says, thermal clips are detachable heatsinks, therefore, if were to be heatsinks on the Gernsback, they should be equippable.

It's all nonsensical,  and there's no "Lore" way to explain it.

What is nonsensical is the brilliant idea of overheating weapons in CQB.

That said,  Ammo in an RPG doesn't bother me,  though I'm firmly convinced ME2's method is completely pointless since they never use it to heighten gameplay.  But honestly,  trying to defend it as rationale given all the enourmous plotholes I can't understand.

You claim that a) It is a plothole (which is made on personal and incorrect assumptions)
It doesn't make the gameplay better.

That's definitely, wrong, since ME1's mechanic was flawed from anything from shooting and infinite ammo to imbalance. The fact that ME2's gameplay is universally accepted to be better, seems to indicate at least that that was a deciding factor.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...


And here we go again, is there seriously no argument that has been answered before?
Tell me, what's the connection of the Geth and the Collectors? They use Reaper technolodgy that's right.
For the 5155st time, as the codex says, thermal clips are detachable heatsinks, therefore, if were to be heatsinks on the Gernsback, they should be equippable.

The problem is geth use geth weapons.  Maybe they're the same as Collector weapons, I dunno.  But their thermal clips happen to be the exact size and shape to fit in Shepard's weapons?  Heck, for the sake of gameplay I'll give Bioware that one.

But the Gernsback would have had old-style heatsinks.  The ones that can be vented and reused over and over at the cost of a lower rate of fire.  And are not detachable.  They would not have been designed to be popped out and replaced at a moment's notice.

[Bozorgmehr]

Ahglock wrote...

If by hugely important you mean I blaze away recklessly in all those games and never run out of bullets sure, it is hugely important.  There is a uzi or whatever on every guy you kill, the guns outside of a small handful of super guns are close enough that it doesn't matter that you switch from one assault rifle to the next.  You can pretend there is some huge balancing act happening all due to an ammo system and only ammo can do it, but I think you are just deluding yourself.  Sniper Rifles are about the only gun that is limited in ammo and is distinct from other categories of weapons.  And many games allow you to carry multiple main weapons so the sniper rifles ammo limit is barely a limit.  Oh noes for those guys who are close I have to use the assault rifle of 500 bullets, I don't have the "ammo" to waste with my sniper rifle of doom.   Sure they died almost as quickly with the assault riflle as they would have if I shot them with the sniper rifle of doom, but like that .1 second is balance man.  Virtually every other gun shoots roughly the same and or has no real ammo issue.  

So ammo is alright for some weapons yet you say in the same sentence it isn't important? Which is it?

Are you arguing ammo is an irrelevant aspect of weapon design?

In every game I listed you cannot use a single weapon throughout the entire game. In HL2 you can kill < 20% using pistol, you can kill < 2% using Magnum, you can kill < 20% LMG, < 15 % HMG, < 15 % Shotgun, < 2 Crossbow and so on. How is this not an important aspect?

In fantasy games with bows, there are usually a wide range of different arrows (=ammo) you can use. Some have very specific and powerful effects, but come in limited supply - it's not wise to waste those on the average enemy.
Limit = value, without limit there cannot exist value at all - what makes it so hard to understand something so obvious beats me.

[Aimi]

iakus wrote...

But the Gernsback would have had old-style heatsinks.  The ones that can be vented and reused over and over at the cost of a lower rate of fire.  And are not detachable.  They would not have been designed to be popped out and replaced at a moment's notice.

I dunno, the Heat Sink and Frictionless Materials mods in the first game could certainly be popped out and replaced at a moment's notice.  (Less, even, since in terms of game time switching them out was completely costless, whereas reloading in the second game does take time.)

[Phaedon]

iakus wrote...
The problem is geth use geth weapons.  Maybe they're the same as Collector weapons, I dunno.  But their thermal clips happen to be the exact size and shape to fit in Shepard's weapons?  Heck, for the sake of gameplay I'll give Bioware that one.

Technolodgy=/=weapons

But the Gernsback would have had old-style heatsinks.  The ones that can be vented and reused over and over at the cost of a lower rate of fire.  And are not detachable.  They would not have been designed to be popped out and replaced at a moment's notice.

The Codex does not suggest anything about retrofitting. Therefore, the lore breaking thing, is that they burn up too quickly.

EDIT: But then again, those are old, and damaged.

Modifié par Phaedon, 30 mai 2011 - 08:01 .

[Murmillos]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

So ammo is alright for some weapons yet you say in the same sentence it isn't important? Which is it?

Are you arguing ammo is an irrelevant aspect of weapon design?

In every game I listed you cannot use a single weapon throughout the entire game. In HL2 you can kill < 20% using pistol, you can kill < 2% using Magnum, you can kill < 20% LMG, < 15 % HMG, < 15 % Shotgun, < 2 Crossbow and so on. How is this not an important aspect?

In fantasy games with bows, there are usually a wide range of different arrows (=ammo) you can use. Some have very specific and powerful effects, but come in limited supply - it's not wise to waste those on the average enemy.
Limit = value, without limit there cannot exist value at all - what makes it so hard to understand something so obvious beats me.

But in ME2 you can use a single gun the entire game. I'm sure you can use 100% of your kills using a SR. would it be hard, yes, would it be affective, no. But can it be done. YES.

You can't compaire to different games and claim that as proof. HL2 was designed with limited rounds in mind. It makes since in the context of that game. next thing you'll be using horror survival game (which HL2 half is) as further proof of the need for limited ammo.

You need to use other combat shooter games as a direct example where you pick a gun and can stick with it from start to finish as an example.. but I know you won't because it can't prove your point - so you have to use other games which are not like ME2 at all to try to prove a point.

Most games using limited ammo using traditional real world weapons make perfect sense, we get it. We are not out to try to change every FPS genre to unlimited ammo. ME2 is so pointlessly done, the ammo is virtually unlimited in being able to pick it up, trying to debate its need for ammo "limits" for the pistol, SMG, AR and Shotgun is absurd.

Modifié par Murmillos, 30 mai 2011 - 08:23 .

[Murmillos]

Phaedon wrote...
thermal clips are detachable heatsinks, therefore, if were to be heatsinks on the Gernsback, they should be equippable.

Next time the engine breaks on my car, I should just be able to replace with with a jet engine, its only a engine after all.


NO NO NO! The ME1 style heatsinks or not easily detachable. They are a system within the gun that cools the weapon down gradually by venting the excess heat into the surrounding atmosphere. They can not be used as thermal clips, nor can they accept thermal clips (as the Mattock Codex explaining the weapon needed to be modified to accept the new system). They are two completely different system that perform the same job. Drawing heat away from the components from the gun so it cool enough to operate.

We just call the ME2 system "ammo" because thats what is feels, acts, pretends to be. Ammo. Yes it based on "heat", but it acts as ammo.

[88mphSlayer]

Sgt Stryker wrote...

SalsaDMA wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

it's probably worth asking but... what's generating so much heat in these guns to begin with that firing 20 rounds (or sometimes, just 1) requires you to eject a heat sink? that's some SERIOUS heat, shouldn't the rest of those guns be falling apart and losing accuracy? no IRL gun today requires replacing barrels or etc. after firing 20 rounds, can we get some liquid nitrogen cooling systems on these guns?

You never tried using a LMG?

Swapping barrels was part of the military education regarding those when I were in the army.

And ME weapons fire projectiles flying at quite a bit more speed than contemporary weapons. I'm sure someone can link the picture of a railgun firing to show you the amount of heat that kind of thing releases...

I'll do even better and link to a video. Here goes....



Granted, this projectile is about the size of an artillery shell, while ME weapons fire pellets no bigger than a grain of sand, but you get the picture.

we aren't talking about a light machine gun or artillery here... pistols generate more heat than assault rifles, it makes no sense... (also, name a light machine gun that requires changing the barrel after firing 20 rounds total)

also what are the YMIR's using? they can fire thousands of powerful shots and never eject a heat sink, why not use that tech on a firearm?

Modifié par 88mphSlayer, 30 mai 2011 - 08:43 .