116 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

ezrafetch wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Reality? What reality? The ballistics in ME don't work the same way as they do in real life. Weapons that do more damage tend to exhaust a heatsink faster because their firing rounds at higher speeds, and hence generate greater heat via friction. Everything that we know from the codex would imply that stopping power should be very high for pistols - their label of 'sidearms' is irrelevant.

That ME3 follows some basic laws of physics?  You're going to need a bigger gun for more stopping power.  If we allow for universal heatsinks (aka bullet size doesn't matter), then you pretty much need a longer barrel to generate higher bullet velocity and therefore stopping power.  A pistol has a short barrel: therefore its stopping power should be lower.

The above is only practically true for battleship-scale weapons, mainly because the differences in barrel length are measured in hundreds of metres. Infantry weapons that aren't sniper rifles tend to have barrel lengths that don't vary that much. They certainly don't vary enough to explain why a round from a hand cannon does 8 times the damage as a round from an assault rifle.

Regardless, the point I was making is that in ME, guns that do more damage do so by firing their rounds at faster speeds, which generates more friction, which produces more heat, which taps out a heat sink faster. The barrel length will play a part in this, but not to the extent where a barrel a few centimetres longer is magically going to add far more damage. The idea that, because they've been given the label 'pistol' they must act like much the same way historical pistols - despite the fact that the primary determinant of current pistol performance is largely based on their calibre, which is irrelevant in ME - is silly. There's no good reason to arbitrarily expect heavy pistols to have low stopping power.

[mcsupersport]

JaegerBane wrote...

ezrafetch wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

Reality? What reality? The ballistics in ME don't work the same way as they do in real life. Weapons that do more damage tend to exhaust a heatsink faster because their firing rounds at higher speeds, and hence generate greater heat via friction. Everything that we know from the codex would imply that stopping power should be very high for pistols - their label of 'sidearms' is irrelevant.

That ME3 follows some basic laws of physics?  You're going to need a bigger gun for more stopping power.  If we allow for universal heatsinks (aka bullet size doesn't matter), then you pretty much need a longer barrel to generate higher bullet velocity and therefore stopping power.  A pistol has a short barrel: therefore its stopping power should be lower.

The above is only practically true for battleship-scale weapons, mainly because the differences in barrel length are measured in hundreds of metres. Infantry weapons that aren't sniper rifles tend to have barrel lengths that don't vary that much. They certainly don't vary enough to explain why a round from a hand cannon does 8 times the damage as a round from an assault rifle.

Regardless, the point I was making is that in ME, guns that do more damage do so by firing their rounds at faster speeds, which generates more friction, which produces more heat, which taps out a heat sink faster. The barrel length will play a part in this, but not to the extent where a barrel a few centimetres longer is magically going to add far more damage. The idea that, because they've been given the label 'pistol' they must act like much the same way historical pistols - despite the fact that the primary determinant of current pistol performance is largely based on their calibre, which is irrelevant in ME - is silly. There's no good reason to arbitrarily expect heavy pistols to have low stopping power.

Actually it more the powder used and how blackpowder/gunpowder works than caliber alone.  The short barrels of pistols require extremely fast burning powder and limit how much can burn, thus limiting performance.  A longer barrel gives longer burn times thus more powder and faster/better performance.  The extra size of a rifle does two things, longer burn time, and more stability for the platform(both in aiming and absorbing the recoil).

Caliber plays a role in how it performs once it hits, in relation to it's speed.  A 9mm does relatively little damage compared to a .45acp when hitting flesh because the bigger round is going much slower.  The faster 9mm often just punches a small hole in flesh and doesn't expand or do much extra damage, whereas the .45 will often blow huge holes by expanding and cavatation.  This is one reason American police have for the most part moved away from the 9mm and on to the .40 cal which performs more in the vein of the .45. 

In ME world, if all the acceleration is done inside the "magazine" area and the barrel is just for aiming, then pistols should have a similar performance limited by how much recoil the person holding can take.  If ME bullets are accelerated all the way down the barrel, then you will either have less forceful recoil or more acceleration thus more damage in the longer barrels.

[Saaziel]

Perhaps its been mentioned before,

I personally go for my Phalanx as a "quick switch" weapon for my Infiltrator and Vanguard runs. The M5 can essentially be used in the same fashion as a Sniper rifle ; With the help of the laser sight , it is possible to deal noticable damage with only 1-2 shots, from a significant distance .

The usage of powers with the Sniper rifle zoom when playing the Infiltrator can be disorienting at times. That being said it does offer some benefit well worth the trouble. But my play style has been more aggressive of late and the combined Phalanx (+ incendiary from Grunt) and launching "Incinerate" while jumping cover can be surprisingly effective.

A similar play style translates well to the Vanguard , though the M-5 is used more sparingly and usually when no Charge/Shotgun options are available.

Modifié par Saaziel, 05 juin 2011 - 04:51 .

[JaegerBane]

mcsupersport wrote...
In ME world, if all the acceleration is done inside the "magazine" area and the barrel is just for aiming, then pistols should have a similar performance limited by how much recoil the person holding can take.  If ME bullets are accelerated all the way down the barrel, then you will either have less forceful recoil or more acceleration thus more damage in the longer barrels.

I shouldn't have said calibre, I should have said round. I was pointing out that round size is an irrelevant concept in ME because all the rounds are the same size. But the explanation you offered is getting at what I was trying to point out - that in a world where all rounds are the same, the traditional differences in weapon performance don't automatically have any relevance.

From what I understand, in ME rounds undergo greater acceleration the longer the barrel, but the actual base speed of the projectile appears to be determined by the weapon ME generator. Considering we're discussing a fictional concept here, I'm not sure there's much point in debating the ins and outs of precisely how long a barrel needs to be do to do x amount of damage - all I was pointing out was that the issue made by ezra about barrel length doesn't really sound like a justifable argument, given the differences in barrel length are in the order of a couple of centimetres.

ME pistols tend to have longer barrels than modern pistols and assault rifles have shorter barrels than modern ARs (the Avenger doesn't look like it's much larger than an M4), so clearly, the old concepts of how pistols and rifles function in comparison to each other is no longer relevant, and hence the idea that pistols should be weaker purely on the basis that they're sidearms doesn't have any merit.

[Kabanya101]

You need a sidearm that packs a punch, like the hand cannon, perfect for the soldier because they have other guns. For the Vanguard and Infiltrator, I would use another pistol until you get weapons training for a new gun.

[JaegerBane]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

All this might be true, but now there is also the new aspect of weapon drops. Shep & co. will apparently be able to pick weapons off dead enemies, so it really remains to be seen whether universal ammo will apply anymore. ME3 might go the route of some other shooters (Halo: Reach comes to mind) and force us to use all sorts of weapons by making the ammo supply for our chosen weapons very small.

I wouldn't mind removing ammo drops completely. Just give weapons a default number of shots, gun empty, pick up another one (dropped by an enemy) which will have full ammo. So a shotgun which has 15 rounds can be fired 15 times, it will be useless next. A dropped shotgun will have 15 rounds also (assuming it's the same type/model).

I think it would improve gameplay if ammo becomes rare; I mean, what is the point in having multiple weapons if you can play the entire game using only one. In ME2 only pistols and, to a lesser extent, sniper rifles can cause ammo issues. One can easily complete the game using only an AR, SG, or SMG.

I'm also interested in which weapons you can take with you. Is it possible to carry more than one weapon of the same type, for example? Can you carry both the Claymore and the Scimitar; or the Viper and the Widow? Or are there still restrictions based on types (only one AR, one SG, and one SR per character). I hope you can use whatever weapon loadout, so Vanguards can still go berserk with shotguns all day long (they only have to use different shotties instead of only one - or get lucky if enemies drop their favorite type regularly), Infiltrators/Soldiers can go all out sniping carrying multiple sniper rifles if they chose so.

I gotta admit that I'm with Termo on this one. The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*. I would argue that having multiple weapons is not really supposed to be a matter of what it strictly does to your specific gameplay - aside from being useful in different situations, having several guns is fun, so having to chew up weapons like they're popcorn would exasperate the current issue with having to run around replenishing clips after battle. It's just a horrible idea.

I wouldn't mind such a situation occuring with shep snatching weapons from enemies, but I still think he should have his own set of kit that, whether by thermal clips or a heatsink, stays ready for use throughout the campaign.

[Kronner]

JaegerBane wrote...

I gotta admit that I'm with Termo on this one. The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*.

I agree. Why should I take weapons from some random mercs? Shepard ought to have the best equipment available, at least I hope so.

[Bozorgmehr]

JaegerBane wrote...

I gotta admit that I'm with Termo on this one. The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*.

You don't like Heavy Weapons?

I would argue that having multiple weapons is not really supposed to be a matter of what it strictly does to your specific gameplay - aside from being useful in different situations, having several guns is fun, so having to chew up weapons like they're popcorn would exasperate the current issue with having to run around replenishing clips after battle. It's just a horrible idea.

What is horrible exactly? Switching weapons or scavenging?

In ME2 there are no weapons which suit different situation. The only limitation is range, which is only an issue with shotguns and SMGs (except the dlc stuff - GPS and Locust). Anyone who has the Mattock or Vindicator doesn't need anything else. Both ARs will annilate anyone at any range; switching to either shotgun or sniper rifle is usually going to decrease your killing speed instead of improving it.

It also is the deathblow to all HPs and SMGs - they are less powerful so why would anyone ever use them? Most weapons will be completely redundant if you can use whatever weapon indefinitely.

I wouldn't mind such a situation occuring with shep snatching weapons from enemies, but I still think he should have his own set of kit that, whether by thermal clips or a heatsink, stays ready for use throughout the campaign.

Why bother adding enemy weapon drops if those weapons are junk compared to the stuff Shep already has? Why give Soldiers 5 weapon slots if 4 are completely useless, or at best optional?

[lazuli]

Bozorgmehr wrote...

In ME2 there are no weapons which suit different situation. The only limitation is range, which is only an issue with shotguns and SMGs (except the dlc stuff - GPS and Locust).

While I would welcome more weapon variety, I have to disagree.  Range itself counts as a "different situation" in my eyes.  And enemy defenses create "different situations" as well (rapid fire vs. shields and barriers, slow-firing vs. armor).  Another "different situation" might be a pyro advancing on your position.  You're going to have a higher chance of hitting its gas tank with a sniper rifle than you are with an assault rifle, or perhaps you should just use the Arc Projector for an instant kill.   Yet another "different situation" would be where the enemies are in terms of one another.  A rapid fire weapon might be a good bet for tightly grouped foes.

[ezrafetch]

I think a compromise is possible. Give Shepard a good loadout but make enemy drop weapons good but severely limit their ammo cap, meaning you'd still have to rely on your loadout but you can use enemy weapons basically as temporary firepower boosters. Like the following hypothetical scenario:

Say you face an Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper. He has some sick shotgun that Shepard doesn't have access to (upgraded Eviscerator? for the sake of argument). Shepard takes dude down via some way, biotics or tech or a good old-fashioned headshot, whatever. Shepard takes the Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper's weapon, and it's an incredibly powerful weapon, but there's only three or four shots in it, meaning at most you can get 3-4 kills out of it. So you use it for that period of time, then you just drop it when it's wiped and go back to your normal loadout. It would be similar to various DMC/Bayonetta games where you can pick up special weapons but can't chain together combos like you can with your standard attacks. The weapons would be designed such that it would A. be impossible to save ammo with and B. disappear once a level clears.

Alternatively, a FPS-style system where you have a standard loadout and then pick up other guns as you go would also work. However, the issue of gun design would come up: you'd have to either make the gun drops good enough to pick up or make the guns fill such different roles that switching would be worthwhile (Halo does a good job balancing this). But then if you drop your old gun, it doesn't make sense that you can just reclaim old guns at gun booths or new levels; you'd have to start with the last gun you used of that type. Shepard being on the run, I think, actually slightly supports scavenging for weapons, no matter how much I hate that when I play FPS games like Call of Duty or Halo.

[Kronner]

ezrafetch wrote...

Say you face an Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper. He has some sick shotgun that Shepard doesn't have access to (upgraded Eviscerator? for the sake of argument). Shepard takes dude down via some way, biotics or tech or a good old-fashioned headshot, whatever. Shepard takes the Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper's weapon, and it's an incredibly powerful weapon, but there's only three or four shots in it, meaning at most you can get 3-4 kills out of it. So you use it for that period of time, then you just drop it when it's wiped and go back to your normal loadout. It would be similar to various DMC/Bayonetta games where you can pick up special weapons but can't chain together combos like you can with your standard attacks. The weapons would be designed such that it would A. be impossible to save ammo with and B. disappear oncea level clears.

Why? Thermal clips are universally designed. I don't know about you, but I *love* my weapons. Why not simply scan the Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper's weapon and then use it to upgrade your weapon later on the Normandy.

Not to mention that N7 Elite soldier like Shepard shouldn't have to be a scavenger to get a good gear.

[Bozorgmehr]

lazuli wrote...

While I would welcome more weapon variety, I have to disagree.  Range itself counts as a "different situation" in my eyes.  And enemy defenses create "different situations" as well (rapid fire vs. shields and barriers, slow-firing vs. armor).  Another "different situation" might be a pyro advancing on your position.  You're going to have a higher chance of hitting its gas tank with a sniper rifle than you are with an assault rifle, or perhaps you should just use the Arc Projector for an instant kill.   Yet another "different situation" would be where the enemies are in terms of one another.  A rapid fire weapon might be a good bet for tightly grouped foes.

The Mattock, Vindicator will take down shields faster than any SMG at close and medium range (SMGs are crap beyond - ARs are great at any range); both ARs are also very effective against armor. Using one of these ARs makes HP and SMGs completely redundant; there isn't a single encounter in which they will be a better of more effective option.

There are no long-range fights in ME2 to justify using SR. The only thing they add is the option to one-shot enemies at long range (Widow); the other 3 are outperformed by the Mattock, and only the Viper will be slightly ahead of Vindi against armor. Shotguns are great at close range, but so are Vindi and the Mattock - there is no need to switch weapons, and switching during combat will slow you down. You can also use the Widow to kill enemies at point blank range with a single shot; a gimped, yet still effective sniper-shotgun

The Arc Projector is an example of a weapon which has limited ammo and excells in certain situations; I think we agree that the option to use this weapon all day long would be horrible, yet despite it can only be used occasionally it doesn't become a piece of junk.

I think everyone would like more weapons, but without restrictions on weapons adding more weapons will not improve the game much. I would even prefer the ME2 system in which SMGs and HPs have purpose (at least before getting bonus weapon).

[lazuli]

Oh, I see, Boz. Are you saying that because certain weapons are imbalanced they trump any need to use other weaponry? I still think that there are "different situations" in combat in which one gun is more desirable than another. The Mattock is probably the only exception to this rule, in part due to a glitch.

[Kronner]

You are right, Boz, but Mattock is OP'd on purpose, and it is not part of the core game. Remove the DLC weapons, and you've got pretty solid mix of weapons and no weapon is great at all ranges and in all situations.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

Kronner wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

I gotta admit that I'm with Locutus on this one. The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*.

I agree. Why should I take weapons from some random mercs? Shepard ought to have the best equipment available, at least I hope so.

Uh, you guys mean me right?

But yeah, I for one, just don't wanna have to go around scrounging an area I just shot up just b/c a game wants to force me use crappy guns. I mean, I'm not against the idea of weapon drops in of itself, but I've had many frustrating experiences with that in past games. In my mind there are two remedies to this, either keep the universal ammo system as is, or balance all guns in the game so that none are totally better or worse than any other (at least within each weapon class).

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 05 juin 2011 - 07:44 .

[Bozorgmehr]

There will always be imbalance between weapons and that's fine, there are other ways to get them on par with the other weapons.

Imagine the ME2 Mattock with half its current ammo capacity, and instead of 13 shots / ammo pick up make it 4 shots or something. You'll end up with a insanely powerful AR, but it cannot be used 24/7 - maybe 50% of the time fighting. Would you still select the Mattock if you could also select the less powerful Vindicator which can be use up to 100% of the time fighting? I think Soldiers would always pick the Mattock b/c they have enough weapons to cover the other 50%, but casters will have a harder time. I think I would pick the Vindi b/c it's likely going to be a more effective overall weapon than the OP Mattock + HP and/or SMG. Ammo restrictions impose balance.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^Ammo's only one way. Say if the Mattock was changed to have a better Armor modifier and worse Shield/Barrier modifier, but the Vindicator given more ammo and a slight buff to base damage and Shield/Barrier damage.. Or say if different guns had different reload times or Upgrade Slots (eg: Avenger given very quick reloading; many upgrade slots).. The balancing doesn't need to be exact, as long as one isn't left feeling totally high and dry b/c their favorite gun ran out.

I'm not saying that low ammo limits / constant weapon drops are necessarily evil. I what I would want is a system that doesn't end up feeling draconian or contrived. Whichever way they go, I think I can be satisfied as long as BW demonstrates a reasonable amount of creativity.

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 05 juin 2011 - 07:58 .

[Bozorgmehr]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

^Ammo's only one way. Say if the Mattock was changed to have a better Armor modifier and worse Shield/Barrier modifier, but the Vindicator given more ammo and a slight buff to base damage and Shield/Barrier damage.. Or say if different guns had different reload times or Upgrade Slots (eg: Avenger given very quick reloading; many upgrade slots).. The balancing doesn't need to be exact, as long as one isn't left feeling totally high and dry b/c their favorite gun ran out.

I'm not saying that low ammo limits / constant weapon drops are necessarily evil. I what I would want is a system that doesn't end up feeling draconian or contrived.

I would welcome more diversity against defenses - that would certainly help.

I'm looking at weapons through a designer's glasses I feel sorry for the one(s) who designed the ME2 Avenger - designing something no one's going to use is a designer's biggest nightmare. The key will be to find the right balance between all weapons without making most weapons obsolete - multipliers against defenses, range, ... , and ammo are tools to achieve this.

I personally liked how weapons work in HL2; you can use your favorite weapon a lot, but you'll need some of the others as well. ME1's system is the total opposite, there is spectre gear and a lot of junk plus one weapon (pistols LOL) that beat all others 99% of the time. I'm afraid ammo restriction are needed to ensure balance - a necessary evil imo. Besides, I always liked most OP weapons (in other games) even though they could only be used sporadically.

My main point is, I'd like weapons to become something more than just a personal preference. When I play Adept, Engineer or Sentinel, I only use bonus weapons (SG or AR) - taking away HP and SMG has no effect on gameplay. I only use the Claymore when I play Vanguard, but taking down Thresher Maws and Arnie (relatively fast and easy) is a bridge too far imo. I love the Claymore, but I wouldn't mind having to switch to a dropped (Geth Prime) Revenant every once in a while

[Ahglock]

I think they are going to drop the idea of picking up enemy weapons. It doesn't jell well with weapon mods on your guns. You aren;t going to waste time moddding your guns if you have to pick up merc trash every mission.

[ezrafetch]

Kronner wrote...

Why? Thermal clips are universally designed. I don't know about you, but I *love* my weapons. Why not simply scan the Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper's weapon and then use it to upgrade your weapon later on the Normandy.

Not to mention that N7 Elite soldier like Shepard shouldn't have to be a scavenger to get a good gear.

Well, you're not really picking up their weapon if you're scanning it.  There'd be a lot of ways to justify the lack of thermal clip-ability, such as prototype technology, or even retro technology that means thermal clips can't be used in a weapon.  Maybe an enemy weapon is a laser beam i.e. pick-uppable laser weapon like the Collector Beam.  It's not really going to make a whole lot of sense immersion-wise most ways you look at it, but I think the gameplay need probably outweighs the immersion needs in this regard.  Maybe using an upgraded Eviscerator model was a bad example.  Perhaps a better example would have been a prototype shotgun with totally new technology that doesn't use thermal clips as ammo, with tons of power but low ammo cap.  But my point still stands.  From a gameplay perspective it completely works.  Pick up a powerful enemy weapon with little ammo.  Means it is totally useful to pick up enemy weapons (maybe essential to advance in some battles) but it doesn't mean that the enemy weapon will outshine your own personal weapons for the entirety of the mission, so that your loadout for every mission still matters.

I think there are other ways of enforcing the same principle.  Say we allow for universal heat sinks.  But prototype Elite Cerberus Shock Trooper Shotguns (ECSTS) burn more thermal clips per shot to trade for increased power.  So you say the ECSTS burns 3 thermal clips per shot instead of 1, and then you have a max ammo of 12.  Make it so that you can't use it much at all.  But then you can easily pick up thermal clips, which means that keeping the shotgun around a big problem if you want to still make your starting loadout useful.  So something else would have to fix that.  Though I can see you just being able to keep a weapon around until the end of a mission, or until the next gunbox or whatever it's called, where you drop it for your old faithful.

Also, Shepard is technically on trial at the start of ME3 for the junk that went on during the Arrival DLC.  I doubt N7 would be willing to easily supply someone who is on trial.  Of course, if they let Shepard go scot free and exonerate him/her, then sure, but from what I can figure at first you don't exactly have the luxury of being a not wanted man in the galaxy.  I can see scavenging being something that happens more in the first part of the game as you're on the run.  When you start calling in allies and stuff and everyone realizes you were right (ORLY?!?), then I can totally see you getting a lot of good weapons without the need for scavenging.  But sometimes you have to pry the technology from the inventor's arms, dead or no...

Modifié par ezrafetch, 05 juin 2011 - 10:03 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

dammit BSN! double post

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 06 juin 2011 - 01:05 .

[Locutus_of_BORG]

lightsnow13 wrote...

What I don't understand is what happens to your weapons when you drop them to pick up others? For example, you start w/ the mattock but when you pick up another weapons - do you throw your mattock on the ground? So you switch weapons? Then what happens at the end of the mission? Do you have your mattock again when you get back on your ship? I'm not a huge fan of picking up weapons just to add a layer of customization. If someone could explain this to me, maybe it would change my mind but..for now, not impressed with the idea of picking up enemy weapons.

I'd presume that a discarded weapon would be 'picked up' again by Shep & co. after the mission. That bit of handwaving's been around since at least Mechwarrior.

Ahglock wrote...

I think they are going to drop the idea of picking up enemy weapons. It doesn't jell well with weapon mods on your guns. You aren;t going to waste time moddding your guns if you have to pick up merc trash every mission.

Read Phaedon's thread just a while ago. Seems they are still on the fence about weapon dropping. But as far as we know it's still on the table. I guess we'll know tomorrow when the 30min demo or whatever airs.

[termokanden]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

Kronner wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

I gotta admit that I'm with Locutus on this one. The idea of having weapons that can only be fired a few times, then require replacing sounds positively *awful*.

I agree. Why should I take weapons from some random mercs? Shepard ought to have the best equipment available, at least I hope so.

Uh, you guys mean me right?

My my my, what do we have here? I had the first complaint you know. I deserve recognition, obviously!

And here you come along trying to steal it. You are being a bad Locutus.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^NOO UUU! I've been on this board long enuff, I need some respect too!!


Anyway, it's about [edit]6hrs[edit] or so for me before the E3 demo(s) air. [/deflection]

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 06 juin 2011 - 01:54 .