397 réponses à ce sujet

[Lumikki]

Someone With Mass wrote...

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.

Yeah, weapon lore was never good in any point, but fine enough for just fun scifi.
Not sure, but it goes little like this.

Game developers creates game. They need to explain they gameplay combat from lore perspective too.

Gameplay combat 1 -> weapon combat lore 1.

Developers where not happy with gameplay combat 1, so they changed combat.

Gameplay combat 2 -> weapon combat lore 2.

This means weapon combat lore 2 replaced the weapon combat lore 1, because combat lore 1 doens't anymore support gameplay combat 2. Of cause they tryed to make it as close to same as possible, so there would not be major lore change.

Now palyers who liked gameplay combat 1 use weapon lore as excuse to say gameplay combat 2 doesn't make sense in lore perspective.  In my opinion hole weapon combat lore from 1 to 2 hasn't make any sense and has many holes, but we aren't suppose to look so closely in details. It's nitpicking.

So, in end it was all about making combat gameplay to better. Seem that not all we agree on that, as what is better..

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 04:51 .

[Eurhetemec]

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.

This is certainly a big part of it. I don't think it's quite all of it, but it's a big part of it.

In ME3, when people can select any weapon they like (just a limited total of them), I think the improvement will become more obvious to non-Soldier/Infiltrator classes.

[mauro2222]

Mmmm...Simple, unite the two systems. You shoot to rapidly, the weapon overheats and you have to wait but you also have thermal clips to take in mind (because it's simply ammo), since the "switch" between thermal clips also throws away the bullets, well it's ammo.. Done, you have your "tactical" battle.

Very stupid and simple but thats seems the way it functions.

[mauro2222]

EDIT: DOUBLE POST

Modifié par mauro2222, 23 juin 2011 - 05:21 .

[Ahglock]

Eurhetemec wrote...

This is certainly a big part of it. I don't think it's quite all of it, but it's a big part of it.

In ME3, when people can select any weapon they like (just a limited total of them), I think the improvement will become more obvious to non-Soldier/Infiltrator classes.

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  

Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

[Lumikki]

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  


Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

thank you.ammo is still unlimited.if they make it hard to find and not every single enemy drops it then it will feel "limited" but still enough enemies will be runned into and drop it.along with it gets replendish once entering the sr2.

I have to disagree with both of you.

1. You can not run all mission through without ever picking clips. Some weapon types can do it in some missions, but then there also weapons that have no change at all without picking clips.

2. If you mean do I ever run out of ammos, as not able to shoot at all with any weapon. That will never happen in ME2 unless you shoot birds with you weapons.

Those 1 and 2 is totally different, we are talking about case 1. What happens if you don't pick up clips. Meaning you can't ignore the termal clip gameplay and just keep shooting.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 06:08 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Ahglock wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

This is certainly a big part of it. I don't think it's quite all of it, but it's a big part of it.

In ME3, when people can select any weapon they like (just a limited total of them), I think the improvement will become more obvious to non-Soldier/Infiltrator classes.

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  

Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

i love seeing your posts ahglock.

do you make videogames? if so, can i play some of them?

[Eurhetemec]

Ahglock wrote...

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  

Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

Nah. You just don't quite get it. There is more to it than Lumikki says, but you're wrong to say he's "just wrong".

It's not that you actually run out of ammo that makes ammo matter. It's the perception that you might run out of ammo that makes ammo matter, and that causes people to use the right gun for the right situation rather than sticking to one gun.

You said it yourself - few shooters actually put you in a situation where your "main" gun runs entirely out of ammo. What they do instead is put you in a situation where your "main" gun gets concerningly low on ammo (virtually every modern shooter does this), and because there's the perceived possibility of running out of ammo (and indeed, it does happen occasionally, even in ME2, contrary to your assertions, especially if you don't keep highly mobile), and this causes the player to attempt to use the right gun, rather than just "the gun".

You're correct that ME2 is quite ammo-generous (though moreso in some parts than others), but that doesn't invalidate the limited-ammo angle, because the very fact that it's even possible to run out acts as a strong encouraging factor for good weapons use, rather than mindlessly sticking to a weapon.

Anyway, that's why I was saying there's more to it than just limited ammo as an encouraging factor to use the correct weapons. Another factor is that the limited ammo encourages mobility and not just, ME1-style, sitting in one place and shooting. It's true that, with good play, and appropriate power-usage (even if that's just precise high-rank ammo power usage), you can stick to a shotgun, or an AR, or an SMG, but it's not normal, and it's not what the game's design encourages. The limited ammo encourages using the right weapon for the job.

There are other factors too, which interact with the limited ammo aspect in a way I don't think you're accepting - for example, SMGs other than the Locust, do, on higher difficulties, such extremely poor damage against armour (particularly w/o inferno ammo) that it's simply not viable to use them to kill armoured targets. You need to use another weapon. You will definitely run out if you just use them in some situations. Similar situations occur with weapons poor against shields.

Again the possibility of running out is what encourages you to switch, rather than the actuality of it happening.

[Mr. MannlyMan]

Lumikki wrote...

Tigerblood and MilkShakes wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  


Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

thank you.ammo is still unlimited.if they make it hard to find and not every single enemy drops it then it will feel "limited" but still enough enemies will be runned into and drop it.along with it gets replendish once entering the sr2.

I have to disagree with both of you.

1. You can not run all mission through without ever picking clips. Some weapon types can do it in some missions, but then there also weapons that have no change at all without picking clips.

2. If you mean do I ever run out of ammos, as not able to shoot at all with any weapon. That will never happen in ME2 unless you shoot birds with you weapons.

Those 1 and 2 is totally different, we are talking about case 1. What happens if you don't pick up clips.

I think you're misunderstanding the point, Lumikki.

Your argument is that limited ammo changes the combat dynamics and adds tension. Ahglock's point is that this never really happens, since ammo is in large abundance. You pick the clips up when you see them, which happens enough to make limited ammo a near-redundancy, and this means that ammo doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on your tactical play as it does on your behaviour following a battle (ie. to keep your ammo reserves up, you need to go around the room gathering clips after all of the enemies are finished off).

In other words, the ammo in ME2 had far less of a benefit than you give it credit for.

Edit: and just to point out, if there's a clear advantage to using a pistol on certain enemies and defense bonuses that make using an SMG inefficient, the average player WILL switch weapons to accommodate. The threat of wasting clips by using the wrong weapon class might give more of an incentive to use an efficient weapon, but it's hardly an exclusive benefit of the limited ammo.

Modifié par Mr. MannlyMan, 23 juin 2011 - 06:16 .

[Phaedon]

Oh look, it's this thread again.

The "ammo" system worked well for ME2, it may not have worked well with ME1, but it did with ME2.

The "overheating" system worked for ME1, but it doesn't work at all in ME2. Yes, there are actually mods that bring this system to ME2. It just doesn't work, sorry.

ME3? We don't know. You won't like a "The devs know better" reply, but they do. Because they have seen and played more footage of the game than us.

I won't touch the lore conflictions, because I hardly think that there are any. All you need is to take a look at the actual codex entry. No new technology, no retrofitting, nothing more than heatsinks that work in a different way.

[Lumikki]

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

I think you're misunderstanding the point, Lumikki.

Your argument is that limited ammo changes the combat dynamics and adds tension. Ahglock's point is that this never really happens, since ammo is in large abundance. You pick the clips up when you see them, which happens enough to make limited ammo a near-redundancy, and this means that ammo doesn't have nearly as much of an effect on your tactical play as it does on your behaviour following a battle (ie. to keep your ammo reserves up, you need to go around the room gathering clips after all of the enemies are finished off).

In other words, the ammo in ME2 had far less of a benefit than you give it credit for.

Okey, I got you.

It's true that some weapon types that can happen, one example is submachine gun. It can have so big ammo reserver that you can pretty much shoot hole mission through with same weapon while picking clips while passing them through. But the point is you can't do that with every weapon type. If you want to use those other weapons you have think more carefully how you manage you clips.

Also you have to pick clips, what change combat behavior too as you need to move to get them. Point been you can't ignore termal clip gameplay totally. And Termal clips are directly connected your ammos.

So, yeah for some ME2 weapon types it does feel pretty much same as infinite ammos as long you pick termal clips when passing through. How ever, they aren't all weapon types, like it would be with overheat.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 06:29 .

[CannonO]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  

Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

Nah. You just don't quite get it. There is more to it than Lumikki says, but you're wrong to say he's "just wrong".

It's not that you actually run out of ammo that makes ammo matter. It's the perception that you might run out of ammo that makes ammo matter, and that causes people to use the right gun for the right situation rather than sticking to one gun.

You said it yourself - few shooters actually put you in a situation where your "main" gun runs entirely out of ammo. What they do instead is put you in a situation where your "main" gun gets concerningly low on ammo (virtually every modern shooter does this), and because there's the perceived possibility of running out of ammo (and indeed, it does happen occasionally, even in ME2, contrary to your assertions, especially if you don't keep highly mobile), and this causes the player to attempt to use the right gun, rather than just "the gun".

/snip

Again the possibility of running out is what encourages you to switch, rather than the actuality of it happening.

I play the same as I did in ME1. I just always use the assault rifles and an occasional snipe for damage. The clips just inconvenience me with all weapons. He has that reload time which never happens for me in ME1 due to my level and attachments that have earned me very long fire times. It just is annoying and feels like the future stepped backwards in tech.
The clips don't decide what weapon I use unless the game decides to be inconvenient and I am out of something.

Lumikki wrote...

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...

I think you're misunderstanding the point, Lumikki.

/snip

In other words, the ammo in ME2 had far less of a benefit than you give it credit for.

Okey, I got you.

It's true that some weapon types that can happen, one example is submachine gun. It can have so big ammo reserver that you can pretty much shoot hole mission through with same weapon while picking clips while passing them through. But the point is you can't do that with every weapon type. If you want to use those other weapons you have think more carefully how you manage you clips. 

Also you have to pick clips, what change combat behavior too as you need to move to get them. Point been you can't ignore termal clip gameplay totally. And Termal clips are directly connected your ammos.

It does almost nothing except inconvenience me. It is far too simple of a system to add any interesting strategy. It is just ammo like EVERY other shooter.

If you really think the clips add a layer of thought and strategy, then I have doubts about your brain capacity.

Modifié par CannonLars, 23 juin 2011 - 06:27 .

[Lumikki]

CannonLars wrote...

It does almost nothing except inconvenience me. It is far too simple of a system to add any interesting strategy. It is just ammo like EVERY other shooter.

TPS is shooter.

ME1 overheat system was, half RPG combat + half TPS combat.

If you really think the clips add a layer of thought and strategy, then I have doubts about your brain capacity.

Insulting is allways good sign. Thank you.

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 06:32 .

[CannonO]

Lumikki wrote...

CannonLars wrote...

It does almost nothing except inconvenience me. It is far too simple of a system to add any interesting strategy. It is just ammo like EVERY other shooter.

TPS is shooter.

ME1 overheat system was, half RPG combat + half TPS combat.

If you really think the clips add a layer of thought and strategy, then I have doubts about your brain capacity.

Insulting is allways good sign. Thank you.

Well I don't know what you are conveying by the TPS is shooter statement. I know that Third Person Shooter is abbreviated TPS if that is what you are explaining...

And as for insults, don't take it so serious. This is a fun discussion forum. It was hyperbolic expression of the simple fact that it is not anything but second nature to have ammo in a game. Overheating required more attention than the ammo count in ME2.

[Lumikki]

CannonLars wrote...

Well I don't know what you are conveying by the TPS is shooter statement. I know that Third Person Shooter is abbreviated TPS if that is what you are explaining...

I was more refering ME serie is hybrid of action RPG and TPS combat. You complain that combat is shooter when that is what it supposed to be.

Overheating required more attention than the ammo count in ME2.

Okey, we seem to be having little different idea about attention, but okey. I assume this means looking overheat meter is the attention?

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 06:42 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Eurhetemec wrote...

Ahglock wrote...

The problem is Lumikki is just wrong.  I think some people can't understand there are a wide range of combat changes that occured in ME2 and they are incapable of seperating them for what effect they had, and instead think all of them had  a positrive impact since overalll the game play is improved.  Outside of survivial horror there really isn't limited ammo in shooters. In ME2 you can stick with one gun outside of pistols and sniper rifles at all skill levels and using pretty mcuh the lamest of tactics.  Most shooters are like that, ammo is just an illusion. ME2 is actually one of the most ammo friendly games out there, I can run around with just a shotgun and never run out of ammo.  To pretend that kind of ammo abundance is limiited ammo is a bit of a farce.  

Sniped Lumikki's post due to length.  

Nah. You just don't quite get it. There is more to it than Lumikki says, but you're wrong to say he's "just wrong".

It's not that you actually run out of ammo that makes ammo matter. It's the perception that you might run out of ammo that makes ammo matter, and that causes people to use the right gun for the right situation rather than sticking to one gun.

You said it yourself - few shooters actually put you in a situation where your "main" gun runs entirely out of ammo. What they do instead is put you in a situation where your "main" gun gets concerningly low on ammo (virtually every modern shooter does this), and because there's the perceived possibility of running out of ammo (and indeed, it does happen occasionally, even in ME2, contrary to your assertions, especially if you don't keep highly mobile), and this causes the player to attempt to use the right gun, rather than just "the gun".

You're correct that ME2 is quite ammo-generous (though moreso in some parts than others), but that doesn't invalidate the limited-ammo angle, because the very fact that it's even possible to run out acts as a strong encouraging factor for good weapons use, rather than mindlessly sticking to a weapon.

Anyway, that's why I was saying there's more to it than just limited ammo as an encouraging factor to use the correct weapons. Another factor is that the limited ammo encourages mobility and not just, ME1-style, sitting in one place and shooting. It's true that, with good play, and appropriate power-usage (even if that's just precise high-rank ammo power usage), you can stick to a shotgun, or an AR, or an SMG, but it's not normal, and it's not what the game's design encourages. The limited ammo encourages using the right weapon for the job.

There are other factors too, which interact with the limited ammo aspect in a way I don't think you're accepting - for example, SMGs other than the Locust, do, on higher difficulties, such extremely poor damage against armour (particularly w/o inferno ammo) that it's simply not viable to use them to kill armoured targets. You need to use another weapon. You will definitely run out if you just use them in some situations. Similar situations occur with weapons poor against shields.

Again the possibility of running out is what encourages you to switch, rather than the actuality of it happening.

i dont want ammo limits to produce my characters gameplay, i want to use what weapon whever i want. ME1 allowed that and ME2 doesnt.

and what if i mod my AR in ME3 to handle all ranges and put on a grenade launcher attachment? what do i need another weapon for? id rather remove my secondary weapon or sidearm and simple carry more ammo for the gun i do enjoy useing.

i just think its dumb that ill use my AR, then i use my SMG, then i use my pistol. why not just use my AR? putting limits on weapons so i kill the last 2 enemies with a differnt gun isnt a need in terms of making gameplay better.

[Lumikki]

I don't see reason why can't you just run with AR to hole game if you want even now. In ME3 any class can choose what weapon to take with you and you can also mod them. What more you want?

Modifié par Lumikki, 23 juin 2011 - 07:07 .

[Tony Gunslinger]

Eurhetemec wrote...
Nah. You just don't quite get it. There is more to it than Lumikki says, but you're wrong to say he's "just wrong".

It's not that you actually run out of ammo that makes ammo matter. It's the perception that you might run out of ammo that makes ammo matter, and that causes people to use the right gun for the right situation rather than sticking to one gun.

Again the possibility of running out is what encourages you to switch, rather than the actuality of it happening.

And that is the point. Some people just don't get that, because these are the following contradictory arguments I keep on hearing against ammo:

Mr. MannlyMan wrote...
Ahglock's point is that this never really happens, since ammo is in large abundance.

Which contradicts with:

tjzsf wrote...
The fact that limited ammo forces you to do different things is a STRIKE against clips, not a point in their favor.

So which one is it: Are you saying ammo clips don't matter, or ammo clips do matter?

[konfeta]

Hm, if anything, this discussion is indicating that ME3 should have ammo drops severely limited on higher difficulties. If there is enough ammo to not have to worry about managing beyond being cursory competent at shooting, its not Insanity.

[Praetor Knight]

konfeta wrote...

Hm, if anything, this discussion is indicating that ME3 should have ammo drops severely limited on higher difficulties. If there is enough ammo to not have to worry about managing beyond being cursory competent at shooting, its not Insanity.

Or maybe at least tweak Thermal Clip pickup rates for Sniper Rifles and Pistols?

These two weapon classes seem to be at the heart of many positions in this discussion.

[Bluko]

My biggest concern is going into ME3 classes will be able to choose any weapons. (I like this decision and approve of it.)

However as I understand certain classes will have a limited number of slots, such as Adepts and Engineers may only carry two weapons.

The problem with this is if you say choose a Shotgun and Sniper Rifle you may be find yourself at a real disadvantage or possibly none at all. If weapons continue to use limited ammunition some players may find their weapon loadout is no-good for the mission and will have to restart. The problem with limited ammo capacity is it puts very stringent uses on weapons. You can't use a Shotgun effectively unless you're just about point blank in ME2. You may be able to damage enemies farther away, but you won't have the ammo capacity necessary to do so for long.

I also see it as bad to punish the player for using certain weapons. Cause essentially you're just punishing the player at that point for not knowing the level layout ahead of time. Why not let the player actually use the weapons they want to? Sure a Sniper Rifle is more effective at long range, but why not let a skilled player use pistols to "snipe" enemies? The problem is the ammo capacity limits the way in which you can use a weapon. Really the way the weapon works should be enough to limit it's various usage.

The way I see it there are only 3 ways to circumvent any balance problems that may arrise with free weapon selection.

-Add Weapons Lockers (Refills/New Selection) at various checkpoints
-Restrict what weapons can be used (this essentially makes the change pointless)
-Remove ammo capacity

I'm guessing Weapons Lockers will most likely be Bioware's solution to the issue. It just saddens me that folks actually believe the ammo capacity adds depth or tension to the game. It doesn't. And in which case why not limit how many times squad powers can be used? Oh right that wouldn't be very fun. But it's exactly the same principle.

The only thing that should matter with the weapons is:

-Damage, Range, and Rate of Fire
-Clip Capacity
-"Reload/Cooldown" Speed

Ammo constraint is completely unnecessary and serves little or no purpose (especially in Singleplayer) other then how often you must pick up ammo. If ammo actually were finite (you start with a set amount) then that'd be fine. But the way most games work (as did ME2) you're essentially never at a risk for permanently running out as you can always pick up another weapon, some more ammo, etc. It is simply a clever illusion that makes you believe you'll run out of ammo. Cause if you could truly run out, you wouldn't really be able to play anymore.

Modifié par Bluko, 24 juin 2011 - 01:13 .

[Cypher0020]

I just started a new ME1 file today, and while I do love the overheat concept...after using the clips of ME2....I find the overheating....sluggish? It doesn't seem to flow well for me, and swapping out a clip takes what? less than a second?

[VirtualStranger]

Thermal clips were a massive improvement, and I wish that gameplay mechanic had been there from ME1. That way we wouldn't have been treated to the "herp derp having to reload is a huge technological advance over never having to reload" retcon.

[Someone With Mass]

There's really no dept in having the overheat system either. All you need to do is to add better heatsinks as the game goes on. Taa-daa. Shoot forever.