397 réponses à ce sujet

[McAwesum]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

McAwesum wrote...

I agree. It was different and I enjoyed that. If anything the overheat encouraged you to use more tactics than just "sit and shoot" If you keep shooting until your gun overheats than you arr shooting too much. Shoot sparingly; just shoot until you get within one or two shots from overheating then wait a second to start shooting and you're good. Or if it does overheat then you can switch weapons or start using your powers or use melee attacks. I thought it was very strategic; ME2's guns are more traditional. Just like every other gun in every other game. Which doesn't make them bad, they're just not as unique as ME1's guns.

That's not tactics. That's a minigame your playing with your gun that has nothing to do with what's happening on the battlefield. If I want to land 6 shots on my enemy, I want it NOW.

These are tactical decisions: storm to another cover, use power, use squadmates, and then put 6 bullets into the enemy's head, and quickly plan it in advance. I know I can do it because I'm guaranteed 6 shots by pressing a button at my will, and not be dictated by a meter.

If you want 6 shots now then you can use a gun that let's you shoot 6 now. You are still limited in ME2. You can only shoot as much as there are bullets in your clip. I'd rather not shoot for half a second and be able to keep shooting than having to reload all the time. I do not hate the guns from ME2. And ME3 is keeping that system anyway, I just wish that Bioware would have stuck with their guns and kept their more unique system. Even though its a minor thing. But it at least would have been just one more way that it would stand out from other shooters.

[McAwesum]

MonkeyKaboom wrote...

McAwesum wrote...
I agree. It was different and I enjoyed that. If anything the overheat encouraged you to use more tactics than just "sit and shoot" If you keep shooting until your gun overheats than you arr shooting too much. Shoot sparingly; just shoot until you get within one or two shots from overheating then wait a second to start shooting and you're good. Or if it does overheat then you can switch weapons or start using your powers or use melee attacks. I thought it was very strategic; ME2's guns are more traditional. Just like every other gun in every other game. Which doesn't make them bad, they're just not as unique as ME1's guns.

I also had lot's of fun with the weapon mods in ME1. Putting increased Weapon's Force on my shotgun to knock enemies over. Or putting Plutonium Rounds that erode the enemies away. And who can forget Explosive Rounds. I had many a laugh watching Garrus blow up Geth with a shot from his Sniper Rifle with Explosive Rounds.

LOL what?  How is that any different than ME2?  You start to run out of ammo, you change weapons.  Or better yet, use the appropriate weapon/abilities for the situation and you never have ammo trouble to begin with.

In a way you are also making my point as well. Because that's what I mean. It's not much different. I would rather them keep the Overheat system or at least modify it and allow the game to keep it's originality rather than conform to the mechanics of every other generic shooter.

Modifié par McAwesum, 23 juin 2011 - 04:22 .

[Notanything]

Though I love overheating and hoped for its return, I must concede to others thoughts that it is not a 'unique' mechanic. However, there are of course ways to set it apart from the basic idea of overheating that people think of. That can make it 'unique' in a sense. I like to see it as a refreshing change of things, to take a break from the traditional magazine/ammunition limits on all other shooting games. Both mechanics have their own strategical or tactical advantages, and I think it would be unfair to deny either one their individual benefits.

[ninja wannabe]

here's a few things that I hope to God that they implement in ME3 for the thermal clip system:

1. should we run out of thermal clips, we should still have the option to fire our weapons at the risk of damaging our weapons beyond further usage until we return to the normandy, a repair station, or taking the time to fix it with your omni tool (should the damage level or character class permit).

2. if we fire a volley from our weapons and we don't expend a clip, our ammo should replenish itself.

3. If we could have the burnout system with thermal clips that would be good, because the thermal clips would still have some use (this basically ties into the first request).

someone may have already said something like this, but I'm not sure.

Modifié par ninja wannabe, 23 juin 2011 - 04:38 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

thats the argument your trying to offer me? im wrong because i know the widow holds 12 shots? (i just looked and the widow holds 13 total shots. isnt it annoying when people get that critical?)

whoosh...

Why do you care about how much rounds a sniper rifle holds when you said, "i dont see how running out of ammo(have you ever actually run out of ammo, or are you just using this as an excuse?) is better for tactics."

how can you say managing cooldowns is a distraction, when everything in ME is on a cooldown?

Weapon cooldown is dynamic. Power cooldown is constant, just like reloading is constant. If you use a 5 sec power, you can't use a 20% version of that power 1 sec later. You use powers exactly 5 secs later so you can get into a rhythm. And no, don't think that powers should work like weapon cooldowns because you can abuse it to stunlock enemies forever > game broken.

a cooled down weapon would equal 6 shots, just like a reloaded TC would equal 6 shots. although after you fire 1 shot with TCs, youll always have 5 shots left, while i wait like a millisecond and im back to 6. your looking at your ammo count because you have to reload, while im rarely looking at my overheat bar.

I never look at my ammo count, I hear it. Real guns don't have an ammo count on them either. Overheating weapons can overheat. You sure you know exactly how many shots you have left on a 40-round 700RPM gun that you've stopped shooting after 1.783 seconds?

lets also assume overheating weapons have the option to be reloaded with a new ammo block once the weapon overheats. if you want to get into the fight, put a new block in, if your out of block, fire at a slower pace, or wait for the cooldown. im not sure why an overheating mechanic needs to be explained so thoroughly.

You need that much ammo to take enemies out? Maybe on rare long-term recon missions that unlimited ammo guns would be beneficial, but in the majority of firefights, the most aggressive and quickest strategy wins. You don't ever win by staying in one place and shoot forever... that's the very definition of failing.

i just dont see any benefit to have brought in the weapons that use TCs instead of making overheating "work." thats why im argueing so much for overheating weapons. bioware gave up far too easily.

I've just demonstrated a few benefits of TCs.

By the way, nobody is stupid enough to manufacture standard-issue weaponry that are unstable. Gun makers would by default block them from ever approaching the overheat limit so that its cooldown rate would be competitive with reload times. They would also add in variable firing rates you can pick a setting at allows you to hold the trigger forever if you wanted to. It can even work kind of like a hand drill. It can even do charged shots, meaning it can over-accelerate rounds to do extra damage/penetration at the cost of more heat. Now why didn't BW implement these awesome features? Because it ruins combat gameplay. Overheating was a way to prevent you from abusing exploits and make the action boring, except that by endgame you're abusing them anyways.

Weapon with overheat aren't that unique. They go far back, and were pretty prominent in Star Wars games. The Tie Fighter series had them, and guess what they had: variable firing rates and charged shots. It made sense because they were energy weapons, and had to gimp yu. The missiles and torpedos were projectiles, so they operated in limited ammo. That game also had to deal with -- yep, your greatest nemesis -- shields! You had to take out those big round shield generators on top of Destroyers before you can deal real 'health' damage.

[tjzsf]

Tony and others, you demonstrate an utter inability to understand the importance of logistics to warfare. Bring all the strange comparisons you like, I've yet to see a good response to these:

If you are a vietcong, do you want a gun that turns into a stick when you run out of clips, or a gun that will never run out?

If you are a sniper who's good at sneaking around (and therefore generally has enough time to cool down your gun), why would you switch to clips at all (unless you were packing a Viper)?

The fact that limited ammo forces you to do different things is a STRIKE against clips, not a point in their favor. What sane military organization gives their people guns that force them to use their sidearms? You'd want something that lets you use your primary weapons. The removal of tactical considerations is an advancement in military tech. Forcing your soldiers to consider something they used to not have to when the same result is achieved (bullet to enemy's face) is not.

*edit*: also, quoting the codex reason isn't a point in TCs favor either. The people who are against TCs generally also think the reason the codex gives is a very stupid one. You are gaining a marginal tactical benefit but sacrificing a pretty big strategic one.

Modifié par tjzsf, 23 juin 2011 - 05:59 .

[Praetor Knight]

tjzsf wrote...

Tony and others, you demonstrate an utter inability to understand the importance of logistics to warfare. Bring all the strange comparisons you like, I've yet to see a good response to these:

If you are a vietcong, do you want a gun that turns into a stick when you run out of clips, or a gun that will never run out?

If you are a sniper who's good at sneaking around (and therefore generally has enough time to cool down your gun), why would you switch to clips at all (unless you were packing a Viper)?

The fact that limited ammo forces you to do different things is a STRIKE against clips, not a point in their favor. What sane military organization gives their people guns that force them to use their sidearms? You'd want something that lets you use your primary weapons. The removal of tactical considerations is an advancement in military tech. Forcing your soldiers to consider something they used to not have to when the same result is achieved (bullet to enemy's face) is not.

*edit*: also, quoting the codex reason isn't a point in TCs favor either. The people who are against TCs generally also think the reason the codex gives is a very stupid one. You are gaining a marginal tactical benefit but sacrificing a pretty big strategic one.

Answering how you worded you questions seem a tad tricky at first glance, because you can either go according to what is available with lore from both games, or stick to gameplay mechanic limitations from both games.
But I'll bite.

For the first question, I'd assume that the second option would be favored on the surface, but when you do deplete the ammo block, turning a rifle into a short spear can also work. And since you raise logistics I wonder how guerrilla style fighting in a jungle could impact the performance of ME universe weapons for any extended period of time. And I'd prefer to be on the right side of Murphy's Law when my weapon decides to jam or I run out of something I need to keep firing, since I assume both ME1 and ME2 weapons are sophisticated.

If I understand what you mean with a US military sniper since at least the Vietnam War, the key is one shot one kill with the Sniper Rifle. So using ME universe weapons the Widow and Mantis seems to be preferable and switching would appear as a secondary concern. Once the mission is complete, the key for the sniper then would be to remain unharmed during extraction, so something like the Infiltrator cloak working would matter more than if the rifle is using Thermal Clips or not.

The next point you make is what gets especially tricky because, lore-wise, front-line soldiers have omni-tools that can break down objects into omni-gel for on-site, immediate manufacture. So any spent Thermal Clips can be recycled and the ammo blocks can be sustained as well as long as the omni-tools have juice. So the only concern is how much would a gameplay mechanic truely affect tactical considerations.

[tjzsf]

To Praetor: keep in mind "ceteris paribus" - keeping all other things equal. For the first question, the issues you raised are present for both clip-based and overheat guns. If your ammo block on a ME1 gun ran out, said gun is just as convertable into a spear. If you're running around in the jungle, assume both guns are affected equally by the muck and grime (as we have no evidence to state that ME2 guns are easier to maintain). For point the second, all those things are less relevant than the issue of the Mantis having an ammo limit and the, say, Volkov not having one. The cloak is available to both, so it's not a factor in clips vs overheat. As for final paragraph, that should mean we have infinite clips and ammo blocks, which is not the case (wrex specifically mentions one firefight that lasted days where he actually ran out of ammo)

to luk4s: no it wouldn't (see how easy arguing is if you just shout slogans?)

[Praetor Knight]

I think I worded my answers poorly, I hope to clarify a bit.

tjzsf wrote...

To Praetor: keep in mind "ceteris paribus" - keeping all other things equal. For the first question, the issues you raised are present for both clip-based and overheat guns. If your ammo block on a ME1 gun ran out, said gun is just as convertable into a spear.

Exactly, that's why I preferred the spear.

If you're running around in the jungle, assume both guns are affected equally by the muck and grime (as we have no evidence to state that ME2 guns are easier to maintain).

Then I guess we agree here too.

For point the second, all those things are less relevant than the issue of the Mantis having an ammo limit and the, say, Volkov not having one.

I guess I should have looked up an ME1 Sniper rifle.

But with the Omni-Tool example I mentioned after, both an ME1 and ME2 rifle should still be able to do the trick for a Sniper.

The cloak is available to both, so it's not a factor in clips vs overheat.

Well, the Cloak was introduced in ME2. Dunno if it was around before ME2.

As for final paragraph, that should mean we have infinite clips and ammo blocks, which is not the case (wrex specifically mentions one firefight that lasted days where he actually ran out of ammo)

Sure you can say infinite, but I was trying to use what is known with Omni-Tools, that with enough materials, the logistics of sustaining weapons should really not change much with or without Thermal Clips. Which also is one reason I figure that so many weapons, if not all in most militaries and manufacturers, incorporated Thermal Clips (including the Mattock , Locust [and maybe Jessie?] from what we know).

With Wrex, the problem still is scarcity (and Murphy's Law for that matter for all we know, since Wrex also specifically mentions having to use crap weapons), so again Thermal Clip or not there are other factors.

[Epic777]

I cannot help but feel we have been here before...

[Nightdragon8]

tjzsf wrote...

To Praetor: keep in mind "ceteris paribus" - keeping all other things equal. For the first question, the issues you raised are present for both clip-based and overheat guns. If your ammo block on a ME1 gun ran out, said gun is just as convertable into a spear. If you're running around in the jungle, assume both guns are affected equally by the muck and grime (as we have no evidence to state that ME2 guns are easier to maintain). For point the second, all those things are less relevant than the issue of the Mantis having an ammo limit and the, say, Volkov not having one. The cloak is available to both, so it's not a factor in clips vs overheat. As for final paragraph, that should mean we have infinite clips and ammo blocks, which is not the case (wrex specifically mentions one firefight that lasted days where he actually ran out of ammo)

to luk4s: no it wouldn't (see how easy arguing is if you just shout slogans?)

Yes but in the Thermal clips version of the game/lore You now have to carry around 2 different parts to operate a gun. The Thermal clips (which all magicly work together(where in real life I seriously doubt they would make it universal)) and the ammo blocks. So you are not adding weight to the solider when you really didn't need to.

In case of ME1 the guns cooling should be effected by environment, on hot planets the cooling wouldn't be as good (Or in sunlight zerog) But on cold environments it would be great. The downside would be enlarged Thermal signatures (which would be bad for when they are using FLIR)

Now on the case for ME2, The TC would add extra things to worry about on the battlefield. Would be good for all environments, hot cold you will have constant use out of it. Anti FLIR would be better as the clip is small and can be hidden easier, In theory should be reusable (as long as material used isn't burnt up in the process of the heat. Also you would have to be mindful of where the clip gets ejected, considering it has the heat to light fuel on fire, so it would eaily burn though clothing so serious injury could occur if it makes skin contact.

In reality it should be a hybrid system, where you have TC but you can let the gun cool down naturally. I'm not sure if anyone remembers Mechwarrior 2-4 (3 is the best imo) but you have a normal heat level and you can let it cool down naturally, or you can elect to dump "coolant" to drop your heat levels fast. with the draw back of less natrual cool down.

So in a hybrid system, if you wanna get alot of ammo out in a hurry you can eject the clip and use the ammo that way. Or you can let the gun cool down and use the same clip.

[Lumikki]

After looking alot of comments, I can come conclusion that some people have absolutely no idea why LIMITED AMMO makes gameplay better. These people see it as limiting they ability do what they want, so it's negative for them. While others see it as creating totally different combat dynamic.

If people can't understand the point of something, there is nothing what anyone can say.

Example people are staring and comparing, overheat vs reload. This has allmost nothing to do what makes clip based combat better. The DIFFERENCE is in LIMITED AMMO. That's point. Even frictionless materials have very little to do with the issue. Because the small wait is not the point.

The LIMITED AMMO cause change in combat dynamic. It makes combat more tactical because player is FORCED to think more about what weapons to use in every situation, because limited ammo. You can't solve every situation just with you favor shotgun or sniper rifle, because you would lose you ability shot because limited ammo..

When you come to area where is a lot of enemies, from start the situation is different between these two style. Because ME1 type of combat means player doesn't really have to change weapon or think much, just go and shoot everyone. In ME2 you have also think what weapon you have in hand, because with sniper rifle you will run out ammos, before every enemy is dead. Also what you do in next battlefield when you sniper rifle has no ammos, because it's unlikely you get total full refill from this battle field. So, what you do is use these special weapons, like sniper rifle to deal only the long range attacker, like some enemy using missiles from distance. You drop them and use other weapons for others. This doesn't happen in ME1 like combat, unless player want to simulate it by own choise. Because you don't have to care what weapon you use, because it doesn't matter in ME1. You can drop them all with sniper rifle or use pistol to kill everyone. This type of lazy combat doesn't work in ME2.

So LIMITED AMMO force player to totally different kind of combat dynamic. It's more varient because you can't just use every weapons to everyting. Also after every battle in ME1 the situation is reset. In ME2 type of limited ammo situation, you situation based how you did in this battle can affect also next battle because you may not have full ammo situation in all weapons. What cause players to manage they ammos not just in this battle but also thinking next one. Because it affects what weapons you can use in battlefield.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 11:45 .

[turian councilor Knockout]

Lumikki wrote...

After looking alot of comments, I can come conclusion that some people have absolutely no idea why LIMITED AMMO makes gameplay better. These people see it as limiting they ability do what they want, so it's negative for them. While others see it as creating totally different combat dynamic.

If people can't understand the point of something, there is nothing what anyone can say.

Example people are staring and comparing, overheat vs reload. This has allmost nothing to do what makes clip based combat better. The DIFFERENCE is in LIMITED AMMO. That's point. Even frictionless materials have very little to do with the issue. Because the small wait is not the point.

The change what LIMITED AMMO cause it change combat dynamic. It make combat more tactical because player is FORCED to think more about what weapons to use in every situation, because limited ammo. You can't solve every situation just with you favor shotgun or sniper rifle, because you would lose you ability shot because limited ammo..

When you come to area where is a lot of enemies, from start the situation is different between thse two. Because ME1 type of combat means player doesn't really have to change weapon or think much, just go and shoot everyone. In ME2 you have also think what weapon you have in hand, because with sniper rifle you will run out ammos, before every enemy is dead. Also what you do in next battlefield when you sniper rifle has no ammos, because it's unlikely you get total full refill from this battle field. So, what you do is use these special weapons, like sniper rifle to deal only the long range attacker, like some enemy using missiles from distance. You drop them and use other weapons for others. This doesn't happen in ME1 like combat, unless player want to simulate it by own choise. Because you don't have to care what weapon you use, because it doesn't matter in ME1. You can drop them all with sniper rifle or use pistol to kill everyone. This type of lazy combat doesn't work in ME2.

So LIMITED AMMO force player to totally different kind of combat dynamic. It's more varient because you can't just use every weapons to everyting. Also after every battle in ME1 the situation is reset. In ME2 type of limited ammo situation, you situation based how you did in this battle can affect also next battle because you may not have full ammo situation in all weapons. What cause palyers to manage they ammos not just in this battle but also thinking next one. Because it affects what weapons you can use in battlefield.

This^^ finally, thermal clips are better!

[Praetor Knight]

Epic777 wrote...

I cannot help but feel we have been here before...

Yup

[tjzsf]

Lumikki: People who like overheat understand what you're saying. They just don't think it's important
.
We can approach the issue two ways, from an in-verse/lore perspective, or from a meta/gameplay perspective.

In-verse, it's better to have infinite ammo. It's better to have combat made simpler (or "dumbed down", to use the popular denigration of the overheat system). Why would you want to adapt a technology that forces your troops to rely on their sidearms when they could use their primary weapons indefinitely? Again, let's say you're a vietcong, would you want an ME1 gun, or an ME2 gun, assuming the only difference is that one uses clips (and becomes a stick after you run out) and that the other has infinite ammo?

Gameplay-wise, some people like things to be hard. Others don't like being forced to use a suboptimal weapon because clips drop at a lower rate than the number of shots needed to kill enough enemies for a drop. The difference is, overheat lets both these groups play the way they want, while clips only lets you play the way you want. There is nothing inherently inferior about not wanting to be limited to 13 shots for my Widow, and nothing inferior about me preferring to hang back in cover and use my squadmates to prevent flanking instead of charging into battle. When designing a game, ideally you want to maximize the number of ways the game is played, not force players to play only one way.

[tjzsf]

@Praetor: I'm not sure where we are disagreeing, then. None of the things you mentioned negate the Vietcong or the Sniper hypotheticals.
@Nightdragon: yes. Hybrid. Option to aircool, but can eject clip for "more dakka right this moment". Also, Mechwarrior = love. Huzzah for ahving "Atlas mechs" in ME3.

[Lumikki]

tjzsf wrote...

Lumikki: People who like overheat understand what you're saying. They just don't think it's important

Yeah, mm.. interesting..

The difference is, overheat lets both these groups play the way they want, while clips only lets you play the way you want.

And you just sayed you understand?

Doesn't look like it, because I hell can't play how I want with overheat system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 03:38 .

[CannonO]

 I liked overheat better because Level 60 characters can basically shoot forever with the right attachments. It felt like a real futuristic solution to ammo.

Then BioWare comes up with the explanation that the clips avoid overheat, but I never overheated anyways so they just gave me a big and ancient inconvenience.

[CannonO]

Lumikki wrote...

After looking alot of comments, I can come conclusion that some people have absolutely no idea why LIMITED AMMO makes gameplay better. These people see it as limiting they ability do what they want, so it's negative for them. While others see it as creating totally different combat dynamic.

If people can't understand the point of something, there is nothing what anyone can say.

Example people are staring and comparing, overheat vs reload. This has allmost nothing to do what makes clip based combat better. The DIFFERENCE is in LIMITED AMMO. That's point. Even frictionless materials have very little to do with the issue. Because the small wait is not the point.

The LIMITED AMMO cause change in combat dynamic. It makes combat more tactical because player is FORCED to think more about what weapons to use in every situation, because limited ammo. You can't solve every situation just with you favor shotgun or sniper rifle, because you would lose you ability shot because limited ammo..

When you come to area where is a lot of enemies, from start the situation is different between these two style. Because ME1 type of combat means player doesn't really have to change weapon or think much, just go and shoot everyone. In ME2 you have also think what weapon you have in hand, because with sniper rifle you will run out ammos, before every enemy is dead. Also what you do in next battlefield when you sniper rifle has no ammos, because it's unlikely you get total full refill from this battle field. So, what you do is use these special weapons, like sniper rifle to deal only the long range attacker, like some enemy using missiles from distance. You drop them and use other weapons for others. This doesn't happen in ME1 like combat, unless player want to simulate it by own choise. Because you don't have to care what weapon you use, because it doesn't matter in ME1. You can drop them all with sniper rifle or use pistol to kill everyone. This type of lazy combat doesn't work in ME2.

So LIMITED AMMO force player to totally different kind of combat dynamic. It's more varient because you can't just use every weapons to everyting. Also after every battle in ME1 the situation is reset. In ME2 type of limited ammo situation, you situation based how you did in this battle can affect also next battle because you may not have full ammo situation in all weapons. What cause players to manage they ammos not just in this battle but also thinking next one. Because it affects what weapons you can use in battlefield.

That doesn't make it better to me. I loved the idea of Mass Effect 1's explanation and played it into my combat. This is just ammo in ME2. It is just restricting you to playing like any other game with ammo.

[Zem_]

tjzsf wrote...

Lumikki: People who like overheat understand what you're saying. They just don't think it's important
.
We can approach the issue two ways, from an in-verse/lore perspective, or from a meta/gameplay perspective.

What issue?  What's good for the game can't necessarily be approached from a perspective of what a hypothetical "real" soldier in this universe would want or even what would be "realistic".  The decision to go with ammo clips in ME2 was made strictly for gameplay reasons, not because it's better technology for the fictional soldier in this universe.

The idea of WW2-style aerial dogfighting in space is absurd too, but it sure has made for a lot of fun space combat games (and movies) over the years.

Gameplay-wise, some people like things to be hard. Others don't like being forced to use a suboptimal weapon because clips drop at a lower rate than the number of shots needed to kill enough enemies for a drop. The difference is, overheat lets both these groups play the way they want, while clips only lets you play the way you want.

I don't see how overheat lets me play as if my weapon's ammo is limited.  Are you suggesting I count my shots or something and PRETEND I am "out of ammo"?  When should I pretend I have picked up more ammo?  And from where?  If a game has unlimited ammo it has to be balanced based on that assumption.  Enemies have to deal with the fact that you CAN sit back with your favorite sniper rifle and just pick them off from range.  Otherwise the combat becomes irrelevant.

[Someone With Mass]

What I don't understand, is the need to make something that can be so simple overly complicated.

What purpose would that hybrid overheat system serve beyond being true to the lore, when there's a system with thermal clips that works just as good?

[Lumikki]

Someone With Mass wrote...

What I don't understand, is the need to make something that can be so simple overly complicated.

What purpose would that hybrid overheat system serve beyond being true to the lore, when there's a system with thermal clips that works just as good?

Some players want so that they don't need to pick clips from ground at all, so they want overheat with enough ammos that they don't matter in missions. The lore is just excuse.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 04:19 .

[Someone With Mass]

Lumikki wrote...
Some players want so that they don't need to pick clips from ground at all, so they want overheat with enough ammos that they don't matter in missions. The lore is just excuse.

Which must be the lousiest excuse I've ever heard of in my entire life, because it takes seconds to pick those things up, and they're clearly visible. I pick some up while running to my objective sometimes. Not to mention that you run into power cells and weapon lockers that refils your ammo on a pretty regular basis.