Bozorgmehr wrote...
Can you explain the difference between 'normal' and 'heavy weapons'? Coz, for all I know it's only a label put on to em. It also depends on what HW you're using, stuff like the Flame Thrower and Particle Beam have quite a lot of ammo and can be used like a 'normal' weapon most of the time.
Uh, yeah. The Cain does 20,000 points of damage per shot, and only fires once. The Revenant does 20 damage per shot and fires over 500 times.
The Avalanche has an 8x mod against defences, does only 50 damage and freezes enemies for long periods. The Scimitar kills stuff.
Heavy weapons are primarily there to offer something to plug the gap in a give character's abilities. In the Flamer and Beam's case, they're there to provide an extra weapon to bulk out weapons-light classes.
'Normal' weapons are there to kill things. The differences are self-evident.
I have to disagree on this one, first of all - there cannot be cool weapons without crappy ones. Guns will only be (and/or feel) cool when you compare them to the other 'crappy' weapons. The HL2 HMG only feels really cool and powerful b/c you're used to the 'crappy' LMG - without the latter, the HMG would not be 'cool', it would simply be the (only) machine gun.
This concept is as old as computer games; player starts relatively weak, but only faces weak enemies in the first level(s) - slowly the opposition becomes stronger and player will find/collect better weapons to handle those tougher enemies. Every shooter and rpg use this concept - what's the point in leveling and loot without?
I don't really understand what this has to do with the point I made. I was saying that I'd rather not have to keep falling back on crap hardware because my better stuff keeps running out of ammo. I've no issue with the player steadily getting better stuff.
Yes and No. The Scimitar is better at close range, the Viper is better at long range - but sticking to the Vindicator will kill enemies fastest regardless - switching weapons requires too much time to compensate the damage lost while switching.
What you're effectively saying here is that weapon switching in general is pointless, so long as you have a basic weapon that can do every job. Realistically this would lead to some pretty boring arsenals.
Like I said Bozorg, if religiously sticking to one weapon because you wan't to keep shooting so much that the split second it takes to switch weapon is too high a price to pay, that's fine for you, but I think you'll find that this view isn't that popular among players. Most players consider varied arsenals a *good* think.
What balance? Are you saying the Carnifex and Widow are balanced? You're going to take the Tempest when you can use the Revenant also?
In ME3 there are no restrictions which weapons classes can use. Nobody is going to use the Predator, Carnifex, Shuriken, Tempest, Mantis, Incisor, Katana, GPR, CAR, Vindicator, Avenger. Even the Viper and Evi will be ignored b/c the Widow and Claymore/Scimitar are more effective. Without changes, all these weapons are junk - only those who like to gimp themselves on purpose will use them.
Without changes, yes, but at what point does it become necessary to scale back ammo to such extremes that the weapons only fire a few times before needing wholesale replacing? Chnages were self-evident when they first mentioned they were abandoning the old weapon restictions.
You're contradicting yourself here. First you're saying ME2 weapons are balanced, and now they're junk?
I think you've misundertood this. I'm saying that I'd rather not have to rely on whatever junk my enemies are carrying because my preferred and chosen kit has ran out of ammo. The balance of ME2 weapons is completely irrelevant to this - I don't know why you're bringing it up.
Also, I never said anything about 'a few' shots - that would be ridiculous. I did say that I consider having the option to use something like the Widow indefinitely to be silly.
Well, you said: " 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 don't want to be having to replace weapons after 15 measly shots, nor do I want to run around *hoping* my enemies happent to be using my preferred weapon. One of the best things in ME2 was the wide variety of kit a given player could use. The fact that there are still discussions about which weapons work best in what situation is a testament to that.
And how do you propose to fix this? Should the Mattock be removed completely? Or should it be like the Vindicator without burst fire and less damage per shot? Don't you think both weapons will be almost alike? Why are you opposed to reducing the Mattock's ammo capacity - so it can remain like it is now, but still has its own weakness?
I've no idea, to be honest. It's so similar in use and profile to the Vindi that it's hard to think of what could be done to make it fit. I do know, however, that the way assault rifle ammo is handled in the game just isn't suited for dealing with low ammo weapons. That doesn't mean that we should go totally crazy and implement a whole disposable weapon system purely to make the Mattock not cheesy.
And you don't think this can be done with non-heavy weapons?
What's the difference in using the Mattock to destroy one heavily armored foe and the Particle Beam, Cain or Arc Projector etc? The problem with the Mattock is that it can be used all the time (unlike HW); using ammo restrictions basically changes the Mattock into a 'heavy' weapon (AR) which has the same 'problems' like all the other HW (i.e. limited ammo).
What's... the difference? Are you telling me you can't see any difference from a barrage of the Mattock and nuclear explosions or bolts of overloading chain lightning?
I'm also confused by your definition of restrictions. You're saying you don't like restrictions yet you also say the ME2 weapon-system is well balanced (without dlc). But isn't the ME2 system build around restrictions?
I don't like
unnecessary restrictions. I don't have a problem with slots for a certain amount of weapons, I do have a problem with having to continuously replace my weapon rather than simply reloading. I mean, ME3 is supposed to be set in the 2180s. Most weapons have had the privilege of reloading in combat for several centuries.
I know your Adept has a different weapon loadout (modding), but the default Adept is restricted to HP and SMG at the start. A Vanguard can pick SR or AR training later on, but doing so means no Claymore (and vice versa) - these restriction are gone in ME3, Vaguard can equip the Claymore, Widow and Revenant if they want to.
So what? If they're going to replace the whole weapons system, than presumably they're going to tweak the weapons to make them competitive. (Well, actually, we know this, as the E3 videos showed). I don't know why you'd assume they kept the original ME2 balance.
Modifié par JaegerBane, 09 juin 2011 - 06:58 .
Retour en haut
