791 réponses à ce sujet

[Murmillos]

Phaedon wrote...
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.

Are you purposefully ignoring information, previous posts and provided information to continue your illogical debate?

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.

The ME1 system never burned up, it only got to a critical stage which prevented the weapon from operating until it had cooled off again. And it operated by clearly demonstrated in game by venting the excess heat and explained via codex.

But combatants were forced to deliberately shoot slower to manage waste heat, or pause as their weapons vented.

Once the vent cooled off (either by player choice or forced from player over heating) the weapon is ready to operate again, with the player not having to change out any system.

Did those items have be changed out? Possibly & most likely done during routine maintenance in the back scenes on Normandy. Or thats what a elite squad would do. Far off world mercenaries and others would do it only if it showed signs of breaking as soon as they could.

[Someone With Mass]

How about just calling the deal on Gernsback something that's more convenient for the gameplay mechanic and apply some lotion on that sore ass?

[Dave666]

You know, the thing that gets me is that a comrpomize wouldn't be all that difficult to implement and would make both sides of this debate happy.

In ME:3 weapons are supposedly modable, you can swap out barrels and scopes etc.

So why not simply add one more mod?

Add the ability to swap out the Thermal Clips with a Heat Sink and those who prefer ME:1's system can have it and those who prefer ME:2's system can also have their fun.

After all if (as people on both sides have been arguing) Thermal Clips and Heat Sinks are simply different ways of managing ammo, why not?

[CroGamer002]

88mphSlayer wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...


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)

It does make sense.

Heavy pistols do a lot more damage then Assault Rifle. Those aren't 9 millimeters pistols.

[Murmillos]

88mphSlayer wrote...
we aren't talking about a light machine gun or artillery here... pistols generate more heat than assault rifles, it makes no sense

Pistols.. in game? I believe the belief was they fired a much bigger round (larger then a grain of sand) while the AR shoot objects smaller, but a much higher rate. But with all mass, the bigger the item the more energy (thus heat) required to accelerate the object.

AR operate by pelleting the target with lots of small objects very quickly, the pistol operates by slugging a slightly larger objects when it shoots. And since AR are bigger, perhaps have more passive area to cool off (yet still needing a thermal clip for quick firing - while the pistol is compact and has less passive area; thus most going to the thermal clip.

[88mphSlayer]

Mesina2 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...


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)

It does make sense.

Heavy pistols do a lot more damage then Assault Rifle. Those aren't 9 millimeters pistols.

the basic pistol and heavy pistols put off the same heat tho

same goes for the sniper rifles, the basic sniper rifle puts off the same heat as the anti-material rifle

[CroGamer002]

88mphSlayer wrote...

the basic pistol and heavy pistols put off the same heat tho

same goes for the sniper rifles, the basic sniper rifle puts off the same heat as the anti-material rifle

There are no basic pistols in ME2.

And for the sniper rifles? I'll pass.

[Murmillos]

88mphSlayer wrote...

the basic pistol and heavy pistols put off the same heat tho

same goes for the sniper rifles, the basic sniper rifle puts off the same heat as the anti-material rifle

Incorrect on the pistols,
M-3 Predator (12 rounds) vrs the M-6 Carnifex (6 rounds)

Correct on the SR's.
M-92 Mantis (1 round) - M-98 Widow (1 round)

[Someone With Mass]

I think I trust BioWare's testers more than the fans. Since it's their job to detect when something doesn't work as it should.

[88mphSlayer]

Mesina2 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

the basic pistol and heavy pistols put off the same heat tho

same goes for the sniper rifles, the basic sniper rifle puts off the same heat as the anti-material rifle

There are no basic pistols in ME2.

And for the sniper rifles? I'll pass.

sorry, haven't touched ME2 in awhile... the M-3 Predator does 1/2 the damage of the M-6 Carnifex, so it makes sense that the M-3 can fire off twice as many rounds as the M-6

the M-3 Predator does 1/3 the damage of the M-5 Phalanx tho, but the M-5 and M-6 can fire off an equal number of rounds

if you really want this stuff to be lore, then the M-5 needs to fire off maybe 4 rounds tops, and it makes no sense that you can reload the M-5 more than the M-6

the sniper rifle issue is another one, and then you have the YMIR's with miniguns never ejecting heat sinks

besides all that, it just never makes much sense that everybody would adopt a system and then never retrofit this stuff themselves so their weapons can fire off more rounds than everybody else's, you'd think maybe a company that specializes in advanced technology *cough* could come up with something to give them a distinct advantage *cough*

[Ahglock]

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.

Ammo is "alright" in some super guns comparable to heavy weapons, it is also alright in all guns.  It is not superior at its core compared to heat systems, it is just different.  And while yes it is part of weapon design it is mostly irrelevant for the purpose fo balancing things in most games.  Why becuase in most games most of the guns perform at roughly the same level.  A AK47 performs roughly as well as a M4, a SMG does about as well as either of those with some slight differences in range etc.  Me having to drop the M4 to pick a AK47 does not impact my game play much at all, it is mostly a superficial design difference, it adds color not much more.  

Some sci-fi shooters add some unique functioning weapons like Halo with the gun that shot those tracking needles, that felt distinctly different.  Now I never ran out of ammo with those guns and I used them to death, but that had a different feel, but end of the day it it didn't function that different.  The tracking apsect was kind of cool, but it mainly made up for it being a slow projectile.  Other guns just didn't need it since the energy/projectile hit instantly.  Really the guns break down into ones that have long range, ones that have moderate rnage, and ones that have close range.  There is some differences here and there in each category, but they aren't huge and ammo dosn't really play much of a factor since you have ammo lying everwhere form fallen enemies.  

If people wanted a run out feel ammo can hadle that, but most modern shooters don't really do it.  Yeah you might run out of bullets in X gun, but Y gun is on the floor in front of you and works about the same.  Still if that is what someone wants either a heat system can handle it or a ammo system.  While I am not a fan of 4e D&D I am going to use there per encounter powers as an example, but instead of a one shot per encounter power you could have ammo/shots per encounter.

 Call it ammo or heat generation it doesn't matter the effect is the same.  With ME2 ammo it would be just like ME2 but change replacing heat sinks into a omni-gel breakdown out of combat system, with ME1 heat generation you would have 2 colors for heat, a immediate heat which drops quickly unless you overheat and a greyed out section of permanent heat that only cools after X time of non-use or with omni-gel as an active coolant out of combat.  So lets say you fire 18 rounds with your SMG the heat bar would spkie up red, but it would drop quickly and 1/10th the bar would be greyed out since it is still warm even if not burining up.  Once you are out of combat you can use a default power to use omni-gel to cool it down fully, or 5 miutes after it is last fired it would do it on its own.  You just gained a heat system that has limited resources.  The specifics would have to be worked out, but that took me however long it took to type this post up to come up with.  

Once you have a system where ammo is picked up off of enemies mid fight, ammo stops being an issue not only for the mission but for every fight in the mission.  I am sure shooters from my youth might have had ammo issues, but I can't think of any modern shooters that do.

[Murmillos]

Halo.. thats the other game with energy weapons, but those weapons have heat rate along with a charge limits that can not be recharged, but you can just easily pick up a fresh one and keep at it.

Far as I know.. people don't go around saying how the Halo alien energy weapons are the worst guns ever invented - but then I haven't visited a Halo forum in years.

[SalsaDMA]

Mesina2 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...


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)

It does make sense.

Heavy pistols do a lot more damage then Assault Rifle. Those aren't 9 millimeters pistols.

Not to mention the slugs they throw out are accelerated to speeds way beyond contemporary weapons.

The thing that CAN make one wonder, though, is why the weapons don't do more damage on unshielded targets, considered the lore behind them . Or why we can't damage furniture or terrain. But I guess that's a case of 'gameplay trumps lore' issue :-/

And in case someone forgot the 'lore' about weapons:

Mass Accelerators
A mass accelerator propels a solid metal slug using
precisely-controlled electromagnetic attraction and repulsion. The slug
is designed to squash or shatter on impact, increasing the energy it
transfers to the target. If this were not the case, it would simply
punch a hole right through, doing minimal damage.
Accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero. A slug
lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater speeds,
permitting projectile velocities that were previously unobtainable. If
accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint chip can impact
with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon.
However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact
energy. This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds
are suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting
factor on slug velocity.

Small Arms
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.

Basicly every gun we use in ME is a minitarue railgun.

[Sgt Stryker]

88mphSlayer wrote...

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?

On the contrary. YMIR's actually eject lots and lots of little heat sinks whenever they fire their gunarm thing. Look at any gameplay video for proof.

As for pistols, even the M-3 Predator is classified as a "Heavy Pistol". I guess that makes the Carnifex an extra-heavy pistol!

What really amazes me though, is how the Revenant can sustain 80 shots per sink. Maybe it uses some new sort of hyper-efficient railgun that doesn't generate as much heat as say, an Avenger or Vindicator? I can't remember if the Revenant is a new design or an old, retrofitted weapon like the Mattock.

SalsaDMA wrote...

The thing that CAN make one wonder, though, is why the weapons don't do more damage on unshielded targets, considered the lore behind them . Or why we can't damage furniture or terrain. But I guess that's a case of 'gameplay trumps lore' issue :-/

I guess the game engine either cannot or was not designed to handle L4D-style gore or destructable environments. However, that may yet change in ME3....

Modifié par Sgt Stryker, 30 mai 2011 - 10:18 .

[Ahglock]

Murmillos wrote...

Halo.. thats the other game with energy weapons, but those weapons have heat rate along with a charge limits that can not be recharged, but you can just easily pick up a fresh one and keep at it.

Far as I know.. people don't go around saying how the Halo alien energy weapons are the worst guns ever invented - but then I haven't visited a Halo forum in years.

It has been ages sinced I played, but initially in halo 1 the alien guns were marginally weaker but ammo was everywhere, the human guns were  a bit more powerful but ammo was level dependent.  The later halo games seemed to level the playing field with most guns.  It took roughly the same time to kill someone with ailen assault rifle as with human assault rifle.  Halo was a very run run and gun style to me, it wasn't about strategy or anything like that is was charge and kill everything.

[Iakus]

Phaedon wrote...

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

Not talking about technology, talking about the possibility of fitting square pegs into round holes.  But like I said for the sake of gameplay, I'll stipulate that geth and Collector thermal clips are the right size and shape to easily fit into Alliance 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.

Yeah I'd want to put damaged parts into my portable railguns.  Nothing can possibly go wrong with that 

But like I said, if old style heat sinks could be retrofitted to act like thermal clips with minimal fuss, I'd accept that as a codex entry.

Modifié par iakus, 31 mai 2011 - 02:10 .

[tjzsf]

Go to sleep for a night, miss out on pages. Anyways,

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.

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.

Point 1: Apparently I also missed the part where you reverted back to the overheat system when you ran out of thermal clips. Maybe that's because you don't revert to the overheat system. Your gun, instead of being able to vent off that heat and shoot again, is now a stick. And you also seem to have dropped the part about how TCs give a slight tactical advantage, but overheat is a far bigger strategic advantage - unless we're dealing with snipers, in which case the low rate of fire of SRs in both games (other than the Viper) makes ME1 sniper rifles superior in every way.

Point 2: No, I am not being "challenged" as you define it, mainly because I do not actually get to be a specialist. If I am a sniper, I don't get to specialize in sniping because I run out of sniper shots in mid-large scale battles unless I'm packing the Viper, if I am a CQCer, I don't get to specialize in that because the same thing happens unless I get the shotgun rounds upgrade. The same problem does not exist in ME1, with the only tradeoff being a miniscule decrease in rate of fire. It is true that some battles are not suitable for some playstyles - but unless you are a Soldier who has a gun for every situation, that's what powers and squadmates are for. And even then, you are rewarded more for charging out into combat than for more reserved styles, simply because thermal clips force you to run out and grab more ammo even if your class is relatively squishy and needs to hide and take potshots.

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Can you explain why TAKING AWAY something isn't dumbing down.

Because "taking away" can mean "simplifying" instead of "dumbing down". Also, stop avoiding the main point. Your point basically goes
"Removal of ammo leads to dumbing down"
"ME1 removed ammo"
"Therefore, ME1 is dumbed down"
However, Removal of ammo from Mechwarrior energy weapons did not result in of dumbing down, as heat, weight, and range all were limiters on what energy weapons could do. Therefore, your basic premise is flawed. Also, stop attacking the strawman that we don't want ammo ever. This is not true; power cells for heavy-weapons would be fine as in-verse we can say it works on a different principle than mass accelerators and meta we can say it prevents me from whipping out the Cain for everything. But no one is saying HW ammo should be unlimited, and repeatedly attacking that argument just makes you look foolish.

And for all the talk about how ammo leads to more varied gun design, let's look at the relevant stats that Gunslinger listed
1) Damage - present in both systems
2) Rate of Fire - present in both systems
3) Firing mechanism - present in ME2
4) Ammo clip size (can be substituted by heat management)
5) Ammo capacity - it's perfectly fine that a futuristic setting with highly advanced tech would delete this. Having this results in retroactive gimping of every single gun from the past.
6) Accuracy - present in both systems
7) Recoil - did not notice in ME1, but also not related to ammo.
8) Reload (can be substitued by heat management)
9) DPS (certain guns are clearly designed to be better but only for a shorter time) - this is more present in ME1, where if you had, say, HE rounds equipped, you'd only be able to get off a few shots within the time it took for your gun to overheat, whereas in 2 you just swapped out a clip. So if we're going by "challenge" as the important criteria, ME1 is superior in this regard. If we're going by convenience, ME2 is superior. If we're going by long-term lack of hassle, ME1 is still superior because your DPS doesn't become 0 after running out of clips.

And of course, the kicker - for all the supposed "varying gun design" that ammo would give you, we have a whopping total of 2 guns per gun type plus a special AR/SR/Shotty unless you have DLC. Totally, totally varied.

[DieBySword]

tjzsf wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Can you explain why TAKING AWAY something isn't dumbing down.

Because "taking away" can mean "simplifying" instead of "dumbing down". Also, stop avoiding the main point. Your point basically goes
"Removal of ammo leads to dumbing down"
"ME1 removed ammo"
"Therefore, ME1 is dumbed down"

ME2 removed overheat a gain/loss mechanic that made weapons unique,gave players iniciative to make shoots count and monitor fire rate when ME2 striped it for a static ammo counter. Conclusion - ME2 is simplified in this regard.

Modifié par DieBySword, 31 mai 2011 - 09:46 .

[Dave666]

Mesina2 wrote...

88mphSlayer wrote...

Sgt Stryker wrote...


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)

It does make sense.

Heavy pistols do a lot more damage then Assault Rifle. Those aren't 9 millimeters pistols.

You're right and you're wrong on this one. Pistols are not firing 9mm slugs, they're firing a piece of metal the size of a grain of sand.  So are Assault Rifles.  The difference between the two weapons is the size and power of the Mass Accelerator used in each.  The Assault Rifle's larger Mass Accelerator should do considerably more damage than the Pistol's smaller one and the Assault Rifle should theoretically be able to fire a slightly larger projectile without losing the power that the Pistol would.

[Dave666]

DieBySword wrote...

tjzsf wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Can you explain why TAKING AWAY something isn't dumbing down.

Because "taking away" can mean "simplifying" instead of "dumbing down". Also, stop avoiding the main point. Your point basically goes
"Removal of ammo leads to dumbing down"
"ME1 removed ammo"
"Therefore, ME1 is dumbed down"

ME2 removed overheat a gain/loss mechanic that made weapons unique,gave players iniciative to make shoots count and monitor fire rate when ME2 striped it for a static ammo counter. Conclusion - ME2 is simplified in this regard.

Another point to this is that by removing the Overheat system they also stripped four abilities, Marksman, Overkill, Carnage and Assasination, one of the main functions of these abilities was reducing the amount of heat created by each projectile, which in turn allowed for a much higher rate of fire before Overheat.  Thanks to the removal of the Overheat System the Soldier lost four Combat abilities and the Hybrid classes lost access to two of them.  So which system lost the most again?

[JaegerBane]

Dave666 wrote...
You're right and you're wrong on this one. Pistols are not firing 9mm slugs, they're firing a piece of metal the size of a grain of sand.  So are Assault Rifles.  The difference between the two weapons is the size and power of the Mass Accelerator used in each.  The Assault Rifle's larger Mass Accelerator should do considerably more damage than the Pistol's smaller one and the Assault Rifle should theoretically be able to fire a slightly larger projectile without losing the power that the Pistol would.

That isn't related to the heat sinks, though - regardless of the size of the mass accelerator in question, firing a round at a higher speed generates more heat via friction, with higher speed rounds doing more damage.

I would assume that things like the Revenant can fire 80 shots per sink because of some heat venting tech working alongside the heatsinks. Same goes for the Widow firing a more powerful shot but generating the same heat as a Mantis.

[Jebel Krong]

JaegerBane wrote...

Dave666 wrote...
You're right and you're wrong on this one. Pistols are not firing 9mm slugs, they're firing a piece of metal the size of a grain of sand.  So are Assault Rifles.  The difference between the two weapons is the size and power of the Mass Accelerator used in each.  The Assault Rifle's larger Mass Accelerator should do considerably more damage than the Pistol's smaller one and the Assault Rifle should theoretically be able to fire a slightly larger projectile without losing the power that the Pistol would.

That isn't related to the heat sinks, though - regardless of the size of the mass accelerator in question, firing a round at a higher speed generates more heat via friction, with higher speed rounds doing more damage.

I would assume that things like the Revenant can fire 80 shots per sink because of some heat venting tech working alongside the heatsinks. Same goes for the Widow firing a more powerful shot but generating the same heat as a Mantis.

except for the rounds being encased in mass effect fields to increase velocity etc. railguns on't generate a lot of friction because there are no moving parts.

[Bozorgmehr]

tjzsf wrote...

Because "taking away" can mean "simplifying" instead of "dumbing down". Also, stop avoiding the main point. Your point basically goes
"Removal of ammo leads to dumbing down"
"ME1 removed ammo"
"Therefore, ME1 is dumbed down"

 Have you read even one of my post? Guess not, because - unlike everyone else here - my point has NOTHING to do with Mass Effect, every single point you mentioned (which I didn't quoted) could just as well be about the weather or your next holiday. It has NOTHING to do with ammo limitations. You're comparing apples with oranges.

But because it seems some people can't see the difference or even understand something so incredibly simple as LIMITATIONS I'll try again.

You're claiming ME1's system is 'better' because ME2's doesn't have a cooldown system? Have you any idea what the whole purpose of ME1's cooldown system is? Does it stop you from shooting your weapon forever? No it doesn't because you have no ammo (or unlimited ammo) > there is no limit.

ME2's system used thermal clips instead of cooldown; one system replaces another - again, can you explain what ammo has to do with having to insert a new termal clip, or having to wait for cooldown?

ME2 replaced the poor heat mechanism with the much better thermal clip system AND THEY ADDED AMMO LIMITATIONS. Do you believe it is impossible to add ammo to ME1's system without having to change anything else?

Have you ever noticed that ME2 has medkits on cooldown AND in limited supply? Why do you think they did that? They did that to ensure BALANCE, just like limited ammo is a powerful tool to ensure balance (which CANNOT be replaced by cooldowns b/c cooldowns have NOTHING to with how many times you can use something). Without a limit on Medkits, you can tapedown (ala ME1) the button, spamming medkits every 2 seconds = you cannot die and can beat everyone to death with your elbow = game destroyed. Do you understand this concept? If you don't, I'll stop because, I'll be able to explain this principle to the birds outside my window faster than to you.

An unlimited supply of [fill in anything you can think off] makes [...] redundant, useless, gimped, dumb, simple or whatever you want to call it. Unlimited money = no money; money becomes redundant if anyone has it in unlimited supplies. Ammo becomes redundant if you remove it from the game - it has no value or meaning.

I used gimped, dumbed down only because it's popular in the 'rpg' crowds; usually those words are associated with 'dumbed down' shooter-mechanics; it's really bizarre to hear some of the same crowd cheer to remove ammo completely yet all it does is simplifying things (the total opposite of what they're normally claiming).

[Bozorgmehr]

Dave666 wrote...

Another point to this is that by removing the Overheat system they also stripped four abilities, Marksman, Overkill, Carnage and Assasination, one of the main functions of these abilities was reducing the amount of heat created by each projectile, which in turn allowed for a much higher rate of fire before Overheat.  Thanks to the removal of the Overheat System the Soldier lost four Combat abilities and the Hybrid classes lost access to two of them.  So which system lost the most again?

What does Overheat has to do with everything you've said? Does reducing Overheat has any effect on enemies? Do enemies die faster with or without Overheat? Again, this has nothing to do with Overheat. Overheat is only a simple mechanic, nothing more.

You're talking about improving your damage output - more shots fired before overheating will inflict more damage; using ARush, Cloak (and Heavy GSB) increase damage output; using Pull, Singularity or Cryo Blast/Ammo also increase damage output.

There is a difference between REPLACING and REMOVING something.

[SalsaDMA]

Jebel Krong wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Dave666 wrote...
You're right and you're wrong on this one. Pistols are not firing 9mm slugs, they're firing a piece of metal the size of a grain of sand.  So are Assault Rifles.  The difference between the two weapons is the size and power of the Mass Accelerator used in each.  The Assault Rifle's larger Mass Accelerator should do considerably more damage than the Pistol's smaller one and the Assault Rifle should theoretically be able to fire a slightly larger projectile without losing the power that the Pistol would.

That isn't related to the heat sinks, though - regardless of the size of the mass accelerator in question, firing a round at a higher speed generates more heat via friction, with higher speed rounds doing more damage.

I would assume that things like the Revenant can fire 80 shots per sink because of some heat venting tech working alongside the heatsinks. Same goes for the Widow firing a more powerful shot but generating the same heat as a Mantis.

except for the rounds being encased in mass effect fields to increase velocity etc. railguns on't generate a lot of friction because there are no moving parts.

You mean all the ME missions take place in vacum? Odd, I distinctly seem to recall an atmosphere in most of the mission maps...

Air causes friction too, in case you didn't realize it. You might want to ponder on what makes meteorites burn up in our atmosphere if the thought never struck you...