791 réponses à ce sujet

[Tony Gunslinger]

tjzsf wrote...

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.

Source?

Because according to the codex and the hybrid system left disabled in the final version of the game, evidence heavily suggests the heatsink used in ME1 operates the same in ME2, the only difference being ejectable, which is purely mechanical.

The reason Shepard can’t shoot with ‘zero’ clips in ME2 is the same reason Shepard can’t empty the entire ammo block in ME1: they’re game mechanics.

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.

Overheating weapons will produce less DPS than reloading versions of the same spec because you’re managing the battlefield instead of managing heat. My examples have proven this, which was to answer your original question:

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

And as I’ve explained before, in the real world, overheating weapons is bad design. Adding a limiter and adjustable firing rates makes these guns more reliable, allowing the combatant to focus more on the fight. However, this gun doesn’t exist in the game, because overheat was put in as a game mechanic to gimp you, not because it's superior design.

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.

Infiltrators are one of the most powerful classes in the game. If you can't 'be a sniper', that's on you and not the ammo.

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...

DPS is not an element of weapon design, it’s an output number from combining 1) 2) 3) and 8). Upgrades, mods, passive attributes and powers are constant modifiers, they can be applied to any gun, so they're not part of weapon design. You are also misrepresenting data.

Here’s the actual ME1 vs. ME2 weapon elements:

ME1:
1) yes
2) no (all guns have the same RoF)
3) no (all guns are automatic)
4) yes, via heat management
5) yes
6) yes
7) no (all guns have the same recoil)
8) yes, via heat management

Total: 5 out of 8

ME2:
1) yes
2) yes
3) yes
4) yes
5) yes
6) yes
7) yes
8) no* (all guns reload @ 1.5 secs without reload canceling)

Total: 7 out of 8

Also, ME1 guns were made in a ladder system and not for balance, so there's even less consideration to gun design.

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.

ME2’s vanilla set contains 11 different weapon designs, not including heavy weapons and DLC. ME1 has 4 weapon designs.

Modifié par Tony Gunslinger, 31 mai 2011 - 02:48 .

[JaegerBane]

Jebel Krong wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
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.

Right... except for the rounds. Which cause the heat thanks to the friction between the round and the atmosphere. I don't understand what your point is.

This was laid out back in ME1. That was the whole point behind the Frictionless Materials upgrade.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 31 mai 2011 - 02:47 .

[Dave666]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
ME2’s vanilla set contains 11 different weapon designs, not including heavy weapons and DLC. ME1 has 4 weapon designs.

Seriously?  Are you telling me that you choose which weapon to use based on how it looks rather than the stats?
Sure, in ME:1 they used the same Mesh and changed the Texture files for different guns while in ME:2 they changed the Mesh and the Texture file, but so what?  By your reasoning I could easily say that in ME:2 (excluding Heavy Weapons) there were only 4 guns, A Carnifex looks like a Pistol to me, a Predator looks like a pistol to me, a Phalanx looks like a pistol to me, so I'll just lump them all together and say that there's only a pistol.  See how absurd that sounds?

In Mass Effect 1 there were a million guns, thats one of the criticisms most often made about the game, too many items.  

Gun A: Average stats but high Accuracy.

Gun B:  Average stats but high Damage.

Gun C:  Medium to low Rate of fire (time before overheat) and higher Damage and Accuracy than Guns A or B.

and so on...

In Mass Effect 2 it still comes down to stats you know, even if we can't actually see them.  We choose the Carnifex when we need a bit more damage and accept the hit on ammo total and fire rate.  We choose the Predator when we need the extra ammo and fire rate and accept  the hit on damage, and so on.   So why do people try to claim that the differing stats in ME:1's numerous guns don't count and say that there are only 4 weapons?

@Boz, I'll get to yours later because its nowhere near as simple as you're making it out to be.

[Bozorgmehr]

Dave666 wrote...

@Boz, I'll get to yours later because its nowhere near as simple as you're making it out to be.

Actually it is insanely simple; you either have an unlimited supply or not - you can fire forever or you cannot.

[Yew Suck]

 

Brenon Holmes wrote...
As an aside, as Christina has previously mentioned... we're fairly pleased with the current system and it's unlikely that we'll be changing it in ME3.

This is from another thread discussing the "ammo". I feel that it'd be great way to end this one and allow everybody to focus this much time, thought and effort into something that could actually be changed; like finding the cure for cancer or girlfriends.

[JaegerBane]

Dave666 wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
ME2’s vanilla set contains 11 different weapon designs, not including heavy weapons and DLC. ME1 has 4 weapon designs.

Seriously?  Are you telling me that you choose which weapon to use based on how it looks rather than the stats?
Sure, in ME:1 they used the same Mesh and changed the Texture files for different guns while in ME:2 they changed the Mesh and the Texture file, but so what?  By your reasoning I could easily say that in ME:2 (excluding Heavy Weapons) there were only 4 guns, A Carnifex looks like a Pistol to me, a Predator looks like a pistol to me, a Phalanx looks like a pistol to me, so I'll just lump them all together and say that there's only a pistol.  See how absurd that sounds?

In Mass Effect 1 there were a million guns, thats one of the criticisms most often made about the game, too many items.  

Gun A: Average stats but high Accuracy.

Gun B:  Average stats but high Damage.

Gun C:  Medium to low Rate of fire (time before overheat) and higher Damage and Accuracy than Guns A or B.

and so on...

In Mass Effect 2 it still comes down to stats you know, even if we can't actually see them.  We choose the Carnifex when we need a bit more damage and accept the hit on ammo total and fire rate.  We choose the Predator when we need the extra ammo and fire rate and accept  the hit on damage, and so on.   So why do people try to claim that the differing stats in ME:1's numerous guns don't count and say that there are only 4 weapons?

@Boz, I'll get to yours later because its nowhere near as simple as you're making it out to be.

I don't really understand what you're getting at here, Dave. The ammo system *did* create a number of different designs, more than what were present in ME1, and it isn't anything to do with how they look. There were so many designs that weapons began to overlap between different groups, with things like the Viper having a large enough clip and reserve to function as a battle rifle as well as a sniper rifle, and the Revenant having a large enough clip to function somewhere between an AR and a chaingun. Realistically, what normally defines the difference between an assault rifle and a machine gun in games? Or a battle rifle and sniper rifle? Or a semi-auto shotty and a Doom 2 style 'super' shotty? Ammo and reloads has a lot to do with it.

In ME1 the lack of ammo system meant that a wide variety of weapon designs were pointless, and hence they were distilled down into 4 basic archetypes. Whether you think that was a good thing or not doesn't change the fact that there were more weapon types in ME2 by virtue of the way the ammo system was handled.

As for your point on stats - to be honest, I should think this was plainly obvious. At the end of the day, the nature of the stats were too generic in ME1 for them to equate to practical differences. In theory we had the Rosenkov stuff that emphasised damage, the Armax stuff that emphasises rate of fire via lesser heat and the Kassa stuff that was a balance.... but in practice, they didn't clearly function any differently to each other because the stats didn't make that much difference. Things like weapon powers and upgrades made far more difference the alleged 'stats' of weapon barring the Spectre gear, which basically OP'd everything.

To put it bluntly, the stats you refer to in ME1 didn't amount to any noticable difference, so Tony is quite correct in his assertion.

[NobodyofConsequence]

Latecomer to this thread, so my apologies if this has been covered previously.

In-game, I don't understand why you can't just use an omnitool to modify your thermal clips to suit different weapons. I agree with an earlier poster that it's never made sense to my why your pool of supposedly interchangeable thermal clips can only be used in one specific weapon at a time.

Game-play wise, especially considering that in ME3 there's apprently more flexibility with weapon selections, if not weapon numbers, on each mission for each class, why not have what is a power with a three second animation but no cooldown which allows you to mod clips from one weapon to another? If that affects game mechanics too much it could even be a class-specific power (engineers would make sense, soldiers also). Still not perfect in an in-game sense, but makes more than the ME2 system, IMHO.

[JaegerBane]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
In-game, I don't understand why you can't just use an omnitool to modify your thermal clips to suit different weapons. I agree with an earlier poster that it's never made sense to my why your pool of supposedly interchangeable thermal clips can only be used in one specific weapon at a time.

I would assume it's because, judging from Shep's actions when reloading, the Thermal Clips in reserve are actually inside the weapon. Every time he reloads he seems to be just ejecting a clip, not loading in a new one - I'd guessed that weapon itself does that, presumably from so internal hopper.

If that is the case, I can fully understand why the clips aren't interchangeable - it would be a bit silly if Shep is sat there being shot at, trying to yank clips out of one gun and to load it into another.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 31 mai 2011 - 07:55 .

[Iakus]

JaegerBane wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
In-game, I don't understand why you can't just use an omnitool to modify your thermal clips to suit different weapons. I agree with an earlier poster that it's never made sense to my why your pool of supposedly interchangeable thermal clips can only be used in one specific weapon at a time.

I would assume it's because, judging from Shep's actions when reloading, the Thermal Clips in reserve are actually inside the weapon. Every time he reloads he seems to be just ejecting a clip, not loading in a new one - I'd guessed that weapon itself does that, presumably from so internal hopper.

If that is the case, I can fully understand why the clips aren't interchangeable - it would be a bit silly if Shep is sat there being shot at, trying to yank clips out of one gun and to load it into another.

But we know that there are external ammo sources as well.  One of the armor mods you can get is an off-hand ammo pack

[NobodyofConsequence]

JaegerBane wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
In-game, I don't understand why you can't just use an omnitool to modify your thermal clips to suit different weapons. I agree with an earlier poster that it's never made sense to my why your pool of supposedly interchangeable thermal clips can only be used in one specific weapon at a time.

I would assume it's because, judging from Shep's actions when reloading, the Thermal Clips in reserve are actually inside the weapon. Every time he reloads he seems to be just ejecting a clip, not loading in a new one - I'd guessed that weapon itself does that, presumably from so internal hopper.

If that is the case, I can fully understand why the clips aren't interchangeable - it would be a bit silly if Shep is sat there being shot at, trying to yank clips out of one gun and to load it into another.

Fair point. Which suggests that the clips have to be loaded before combat, yet when we run over clips in combat all weapons are simultaneously replenished. Bugs me, tbh, because the mechanic has been created and the ingame logic is just poor camo. Greater scheme of things it is nitpcking and is certainly not foremost on my mind in the middle of an intense firefight, mind you.

[Murmillos]

The ammo system didn't create more weapon "types"; the developer created more weapon types.

All of your basic weapons (NOT THE HEAVY WEAPONS!) in ME2, the Pistols, the SMG, the AR's, the SR and even including the Shotgun can all work and exist in a heat management based system.

The heavy weapons were fine being added as a ammo based - but this is not what this thread is about.

The lack of unique weapon designs in ME1 is not hard proof that heat based management systems was what was holding the system back. The lack of unique weapon designs and the use of the latter system in ME1 was instead a development choice.

We can all agree that it was simplistic and bare bones, no argument there, and that ME2 had better unique weapons but that was the developers creative strengths in developing those weapons - not the ammo system!

Modifié par Murmillos, 31 mai 2011 - 11:01 .

[The Spamming Troll]

^totally agree with you murmillos.

JaegerBane wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
In-game, I don't understand why you can't just use an omnitool to modify your thermal clips to suit different weapons. I agree with an earlier poster that it's never made sense to my why your pool of supposedly interchangeable thermal clips can only be used in one specific weapon at a time.

I would assume it's because, judging from Shep's actions when reloading, the Thermal Clips in reserve are actually inside the weapon. Every time he reloads he seems to be just ejecting a clip, not loading in a new one - I'd guessed that weapon itself does that, presumably from so internal hopper.

If that is the case, I can fully understand why the clips aren't interchangeable - it would be a bit silly if Shep is sat there being shot at, trying to yank clips out of one gun and to load it into another.

thats not the case.

so instead of infinate ammo like ME1, we get weapons filled with limitless thermal clips?

also, the thermal clips i pick up arent segregated by weapon type, so why would i have a problem using sniper ammo in my AR. u cant label something universal, and have it only serve one function.

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 01 juin 2011 - 12:03 .

[Clonedzero]

lets all continue to complain about a 100% functional and balanced ammo system and at the same time suggesting horribly balanced and gameplay breaking ways to change it!

[The Spamming Troll]

30 pages isnt enough.

[Murmillos]

 

JaegerBane wrote...In ME1 the lack of ammo system meant that a wide variety of weapon designs were pointless, and hence they were distilled down into 4 basic archetypes. Whether you think that was a good thing or not doesn't change the fact that there were more weapon types in ME2 by virtue of the way the ammo system was handled.

As for your point on stats - to be honest, I should think this was plainly obvious. At the end of the day, the nature of the stats were too generic in ME1 for them to equate to practical differences. In theory we had the Rosenkov stuff that emphasised damage, the Armax stuff that emphasises rate of fire via lesser heat and the Kassa stuff that was a balance.... but in practice, they didn't clearly function any differently to each other because the stats didn't make that much difference. Things like weapon powers and upgrades made far more difference the alleged 'stats' of weapon barring the Spectre gear, which basically OP'd everything.

I can agree with you that perhaps a heat management system you can't have such a very broad and diverse range of weapons that not easily distinguishable distinct archetypes; but the function of a heat system did not limit the 4 classes as tightly or simple as were found in ME1. ME1 could have a lot more variety and uniqueness, but the only thing limiting the weapons of ME1 was the development team own lack of talent into the F/TPS genre.

ME1 weapons suffered from stats that didn't matter, and a upgrade system that wasn't balanced, and weapons that followed a simplistic ladder upgrade system.

ME1 was more about story telling and art style, with gameplay a distant 2nd. So if everything about ME1 game play is nailed for being so simplistic, then how come the weapon system seems to be the end all of perfection when it comes to judging the heat management vrs ammo debate?
ME1 system had serious flaws and is far from perfect, you'll get no arguments about that, but I still strongly feel the system had very strong potential to do awesome.

I wouldn't hate the ammo system so much if the idea behind not having thermal clips meant your weapon was no more then a glorified futuristic club. The whole change would have blown over if weapons fired at 1/4 rate with no more clips. That would have still given the player strong incentive to move to get more clips, but not break the lore that ME1 provided.
I would honestly stop these debates if Bioware did give us 1/4 rate RoF weapon if we had no thermal clips. Just to say "Hey, not having thermal clips really sucks.. but the lore is fully intact.")(and yes, I fully understand with in the game play thermal clips are unlimited... but again as you like to say.. many things are done for GAME PLAY.. the unlimited thermal clips is one of those GAME PLAY things which is required).

Modifié par Murmillos, 01 juin 2011 - 01:06 .

[Draemien]

Murmillos wrote...

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.

Indeed.

Phaedon's blind defense of the lore retcon made to adjust game mechanics is nauseating and obnoxious.

Why do people have to abandon logical thought just to be protective of their investment/personal preference? Fanboyism at its best. Is it really that hard to admit it was a retcon and it makes little sense lore wise?

I mean, people went as far as making stuff up about how the weapons wouldn't need to be modified to use thermal clips (which is blatantly incorrect, as seen in the quote above) and how it would be possible to completely replace the old weapons/heatsinks/whatever in a short span of time. All that just to justify lorewise a gameplay change.That's beyond absurd.

Also, *I* prefer the overheat system. Contrary to the codex entry, *I* fire faster with them and manage heat very well.Taking that in consideration, it makes really no sense that there are no other people in the galaxy that also still prefer the old weapons, specially considering that they've trained and used them for most of their lifes. And if there's a potential consumer, there will be a potential seller. And I'm to believe that those old weapons/heatsinks are nowhere to be found now? pfft.

Besides, even if the old heatsinks made the weapons worse (clearly they don't - most people complain that unlimited ammo made game easier), why shouldn't it be my choice to decide to use em or not? 

******

Putting aside the lore aspects and moving to the gameplay mechanics, I really don't understand why people prefer the thermal clips, specially considering that finding ammo isn't really an issue.

How is being forced to reload in the middle of combat a different hindrance than waiting for a weapon to cooldown? One could even think of a system where a weapon would necessarily overheat in a fixed number of shots, cooling down in 1.5s (or cooling whenever reload key is pressed), and it would be be basically the same thing as reloading the weapon with ammo. The change is more cosmetic than it seems (ahem, elevators vs loading screens). If anything, I seem to manage heat better than I manage having to reload in the middle of a shootout. I don't think that's the intended idea.

The only real difference that favors the new system is that thermal clips can make the game more challenging by limiting the ammo availability. Thing is, though, that ammo isn't limited, but constantly available, as you are almost always replenished after looting a group of dead enemies and before moving on to the next.

Instead of making thermal clips an interesting mechanic and a challenging aspect of gameplay, Bioware (at least for me, as a vanguard, not using sniper rifles - the only weapon where ammo seems to be an issue according to players) just forced me to scavenge for ammo dropped all around the place - a REALLY BORING mechanic.


******

On a side note, it would be really easy for bioware to change the gameplay mechanics without breaking the lore.

All they needed to is say that during those two years weapons were made much more powerful, as to compensate for better shields and armors (for example). However, the added power was too much for the old heatsinks to handle, which called for the development of thermal clips. 

To make things more belieavable, they could even let us use "old" weapons, making them do little damage, forcing us to move to the new weapons and play according to their intended mechanics.


 

[Yew Suck]

Holy f*ck. Everybody just get over it already.

[Weiser_Cain]

I wonder if this 30 page discussion, sometimes argument, at least gives the devs something to think about.
This game doesn't come out for a year right?

Modifié par Weiser_Cain, 01 juin 2011 - 08:52 .

[Vez04]

Weiser_Cain wrote...

I wonder if this 30 page discussion, sometimes argument, at least gives the devs something to think about.
This game doesn't come out for a year right?

Pretty much. Althrough about 9 months+ is more close.

[Kabanya101]

I like how some people go off topic and talk about weapon designs and damage percentage. The discussion is strictly the ammo, I don't understand why some nerds have the time to calculate down to the thousandths place of how much damage a sniper rifle does.

There bringing back the cthermal clips, I preferred the first system, but I'm not going to write a book about it.

[Bozorgmehr]

Murmillos wrote...

The ammo system didn't create more weapon "types"; the developer created more weapon types.

Really? And how exactly do the devs design weapons - don't you think stuff like damage, accuracy, RoF, recoil, range, effects vs certain defenses, ... , and ammo are the variables they use to create different weapons. How can you create MORE weapons with LESS variables? That's impossible.

All of your basic weapons (NOT THE HEAVY WEAPONS!) in ME2, the Pistols, the SMG, the AR's, the SR and even including the Shotgun can all work and exist in a heat management based system.

Can you explain the difference between heavy weapons and non-heavy weapons?

The heavy weapons were fine being added as a ammo based - but this is not what this thread is about.

This thread is exactly about ammo versus no ammo. Heavy weapons are, well, weapons - heavy is only a clasification - nothing more.

Can you explain why the Widow, Mantis, Claymore and the (charged) GPS can OSOK enemies whilst all (except Cain) heavy weapons cannot? Those 4 weapons inflict much more damage per shot than heavy weapons - yet they are not named 'heavy'.

The Mattock will outperform every Heavy Weapon in terms of DPS and DoT - yet it's only a 'light weapon' - why?

Explain what makes a heavy weapon, and why. Explain why the Locust is an SMG and not an AR; the Viper a SR and not a AR with scope etc.

The lack of unique weapon designs in ME1 is not hard proof that heat based management systems was what was holding the system back. The lack of unique weapon designs and the use of the latter system in ME1 was instead a development choice.

So why are you using arguments like "in ME2 you hardly ever run out of ammo with weapon X so ammo has no purpose"? I've already told you a dozen times, that the implementation of whatever system has nothing to do with the system an sich. In ME2 the Mattock has huge ammo pickups (almost one full clip, 13 shots); the Incisor has a insanely poor ammo pickup (only 2 shots whilst 3 are required to fire a burst) - AMMO makes the Mattock insanely OP (as intented by the devs btw) and it makes the Incisor total crap (I think unintended). Reversing ammo pickup - so only 2 shots/clip for the Mattock and 13 shots/clip for the Incisor would restore balance between both weapons (and the others); without ammo that's impossible.

We can all agree that it was simplistic and bare bones, no argument there, and that ME2 had better unique weapons but that was the developers creative strengths in developing those weapons - not the ammo system!

Limited ammunition is at the core of ME2 weapon design; you can always design every weapon based on a heat/cooldown system (which, for the hundred time, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMMO) with ammo and without ammo. Ammo adds more options, removing ammo reduces options. Using ammo limitations will ALWAYS results in more options to design weapons; taking away ammo will ALWAYS results in less options.

[Murmillos]

[quote]Bozorgmehr wrote...

[quote]Murmillos wrote...

The ammo system didn't create more weapon "types"; the developer created more weapon types.[/quote]

Really? And how exactly do the devs design weapons - don't you think stuff like damage, accuracy, RoF, recoil, range, effects vs certain defenses, ... , and ammo are the variables they use to create different weapons. How can you create MORE weapons with LESS variables? That's impossible.

[/quote]
Seriously, what?

The adding of Ammo variable instead of the use of heat management does not suddenly add the variables of damage vrs certain defenses, RoF, Range, Recoil & Accuracy.. *sigh*
Only the adding of those variables added those variables. Adding ammo didn't suddenly make them show up.

The choice of ammo limits is just one the variables (1 out of 8 somebody listed before?) that can be considered when designing a weapon.

[quote]Bozorgmehr wrote...

Can you explain the difference between heavy weapons and non-heavy weapons? [/quote]
Yes, the game tells me what are the heavy weapons and which ones are not.

[quote]Bozorgmehr wrote...
[quote]The heavy weapons were fine being added as a ammo based - but this is not what this thread is about.[/quote]

This thread is exactly about ammo versus no ammo. Heavy weapons are, well, weapons - heavy is only a classification - nothing more.

Can you explain why the Widow, Mantis, Claymore and the (charged) GPS can OSOK enemies whilst all (except Cain) heavy weapons cannot? Those 4 weapons inflict much more damage per shot than heavy weapons - yet they are not named 'heavy'.[/quote]
I can't explain development decisions on why some weapons act the way they do. It seems there is a critical flaw in your ammo balances weapons claim, when even these ammo based weapons aren't even balanced.

[quote]
The Mattock will outperform every Heavy Weapon in terms of DPS and DoT - yet it's only a 'light weapon' - why?
[/quote]
Again, ask the developers. I don't know why they developed the weapon as such. Again, a clear example that there is a critical flaw in your ammo balances weapons claim, when even these ammo based weapons aren't even balanced.

[quote]
Explain what makes a heavy weapon, and why. Explain why the Locust is an SMG and not an AR; the Viper a SR and not a AR with scope etc.
[/quote]
Because the game classified them as such, and as far as I'm aware, they fit cleanly into the archetypes we expect those guns to be in.

[quote][quote]
The lack of unique weapon designs in ME1 is not hard proof that heat based management systems was what was holding the system back. The lack of unique weapon designs and the use of the latter system in ME1 was instead a development choice.[/quote]

So why are you using arguments like "in ME2 you hardly ever run out of ammo with weapon X so ammo has no purpose"? I've already told you a dozen times, that the implementation of whatever system has nothing to do with the system an sich. In ME2 the Mattock has huge ammo pickups (almost one full clip, 13 shots); the Incisor has a insanely poor ammo pickup (only 2 shots whilst 3 are required to fire a burst) - AMMO makes the Mattock insanely OP (as intented by the devs btw) and it makes the Incisor total crap (I think unintended). Reversing ammo pickup - so only 2 shots/clip for the Mattock and 13 shots/clip for the Incisor would restore balance between both weapons (and the others); without ammo that's impossible. [/quote]

So wait.. I thought ammo systems fixed all balancing issues that couldn't happen with a heat management system, you keep on pointing out all these flaws and imbalances that continue EVEN as a ammo based system. So I guess ammo doesn't fix everything.

[quote][quote]
We can all agree that it was simplistic and bare bones, no argument there, and that ME2 had better unique weapons but that was the developers
creative strengths in developing those weapons - not the ammo system![/quote]

Limited ammunition is at the core of ME2 weapon design; you can always design every weapon based on a heat/cooldown system (which, for the hundred
time, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AMMO) with ammo and without ammo. Ammo adds more options, removing ammo reduces options. Using ammo limitations will ALWAYS results in more options to design weapons; taking away ammo will ALWAYS results in less options.[/quote]

That is a very narrow way of looking at it. As pointed out before, removal of the heat management system in favor of a ammo based system removed 4 skills/talents, while adding the ammo based system only added ammo. So yes for the weapon, it had one more options (ammo), but lost 4 skill with in game play. So.. take your pick on what got simpler.

Modifié par Murmillos, 01 juin 2011 - 03:53 .

[JaegerBane]

The Spamming Troll wrote...
thats not the case.

Are you actually to going to offer a counterpoint here, are do you consider your word alone to be an argument in of itself?

so instead of infinate ammo like ME1, we get weapons filled with limitless thermal clips?

No. You get weapons that have a finite store of clips that need to be replinished. If your point is that there isn't any indication that you ever load more thermal clips into the weapons, I would point out that ME1's system of never running out of ammo - despite the codex making it clear that ammo still existed, just in far larger quanitites than today - is no different. Neither system purported to show everything in 100% detail.

also, the thermal clips i pick up arent segregated by weapon type, so why would i have a problem using sniper ammo in my AR. u cant label something universal, and have it only serve one function.

Read my post again. The idea of pulling clips out of one weapon and trying to load them into another is absurd regardless of whether ammo is universal or happens to be shared between two particular weapons. The ammo system is still universal by virtue that there is one ammo type lying around which feeds into all carried guns. It patently doesn't serve 'one' function as you're not running around looking for AR, pistol or shotgun ammo like you do in other games.

Granted, that opens up the question of what the point was in introducing the ammo system if the ammo is universal, but that's another aspect entirely.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 01 juin 2011 - 03:42 .

[JaegerBane]

NobodyofConsequence wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

NobodyofConsequence wrote...
In-game, I don't understand why you can't just use an omnitool to modify your thermal clips to suit different weapons. I agree with an earlier poster that it's never made sense to my why your pool of supposedly interchangeable thermal clips can only be used in one specific weapon at a time.

I would assume it's because, judging from Shep's actions when reloading, the Thermal Clips in reserve are actually inside the weapon. Every time he reloads he seems to be just ejecting a clip, not loading in a new one - I'd guessed that weapon itself does that, presumably from so internal hopper.

If that is the case, I can fully understand why the clips aren't interchangeable - it would be a bit silly if Shep is sat there being shot at, trying to yank clips out of one gun and to load it into another.

Fair point. Which suggests that the clips have to be loaded before combat, yet when we run over clips in combat all weapons are simultaneously replenished. Bugs me, tbh, because the mechanic has been created and the ingame logic is just poor camo. Greater scheme of things it is nitpcking and is certainly not foremost on my mind in the middle of an intense firefight, mind you.

True, but as I said before, ME1 is no more accurate in it's portrayal. In ME1 the codex claimed weapons had a clip capacities in the order of thousands of rounds.... but there are no such limits in-game. There is a line between in-game depictions and the gory details that go beyond adding to the gameplay, and worrying about the above is, imho, crossing it

[Ahglock]

Murmillos wrote...

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Murmillos wrote...

The ammo system didn't create more weapon "types"; the developer created more weapon types.

Really? And how exactly do the devs design weapons - don't you think stuff like damage, accuracy, RoF, recoil, range, effects vs certain defenses, ... , and ammo are the variables they use to create different weapons. How can you create MORE weapons with LESS variables? That's impossible.

Seriously, what?

The adding of Ammo variable instead of the use of heat management does not suddenly add the variables of damage vrs certain defenses, RoF, Range, Recoil & Accuracy.. *sigh*
Only the adding of those variables added those variables. Adding ammo didn't suddenly make them show up.

The choice of ammo limits is just one the variables (1 out of 8 somebody listed before?) that can be considered when designing a weapon.

Which can be substitutted with heat management.  There are ways in heat management systems to have the ability ot run out of heat on a level as permanent as ammo systems, you can vary the rate at which heat decreases on each weapon etc.  For every varaible ammo adds you can also have something like it with heat management, the detail that ME1 did not do that is irrelevant.   It is sort of like the the so called variable of ammo added in ME2 isn't much of an add since ammo is so prevailaint it has no effect on game play, so different ammo sizes are basically irrelevant.  All it really does is alter rate of fire due to reloading speeds, and you can alter rate of fire under either system.  Really ME2 only added one variable and it does make the guns seem different and that is different fire rates, one pistol fires slowly shot per shot, the predator you can empty a clip qucikly, one SMG is full auto another is burst fire only. (well they also sound and look different which is big) That could have been done with the heat system it just wasn't.