397 réponses à ce sujet

[InvaderErl]

The clips allowed Bioware to make more unique and distinct weapons like the Widow/Krogan shotgun/Heavy Weapons etc. while limiting ammo so that players could not rely exclusively on those weapons as opposed to the same basic 4 weapon types that ME1 relied on.

Modifié par InvaderErl, 21 juin 2011 - 03:24 .

[FDrage]

Lumikki wrote...

In lore point sure, but in gameplay perspective there is huge difference for players fun. Of course not all people find they fun same way. How ever question is, do we players really want ME1 type of combat back? I hell don't.

The issue with ME1 and ME2 combat wasn't solved with ammo, it was solved by the other adjustments e.g. ammo powers, weapons "stats", biotoc powers, making shields n ot exisitent, etc., What technical does ammo do comapred to overheating, you fire until the heat sink is full then you eject it. Both have a time duration accoziated with it. WIth the overheating system you could "simulate" the same you fire until you overheat and then you eject that heat by letting it cool down. So Overall all it does is playing around with 2 time variables and that was more the issue which made the ME1 combat slower not the ammo or overheat system perse. it would have just been a balancing issue of the two time variables in the end plus the variable of the "Frequence of finding" more ammo.

The main issue in regards to ammo is just that ever player through various shooters (FPS / TPS) is used to "ammo" or whatever one wants to call it.

The only thing it did for me was forcing me to use a weapon I don't like, because these were the only weapons I had ammo for because I didn't prefer using them. That is all it does making the combat less fun for me and moving it to a more "run & gun" approach to combat.

[Lumikki]

Calinstel wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

That is all.  A modern day, not futuristic, one at that.

In lore point sure, but in gameplay perspective there is huge difference for players fun. Of course not all people find they fun same way. How ever question is, do we players really want ME1 type of combat back? I hell don't.

I actually never understood the 'game play' issues.
If you are referring to needing to learn, in game, how to aim a weapon, I agree. 

Nope, has nothing to do with learning to aim.

I ques this issue is like one of my friend have in real life. Trying to explain that how some music is different than others. He just say, it's music, what does it matter what kind of music it is.

For you people it's I want to use my best favor weapon to everyting. Then you ask, why we have issues with that kind of combat design. Do you think I like picking clips from ground, hell no I hate it, but it's better than other option as make combat dull and simplifyed. It's about combat dynamics. You way is like listening only jazz rest of you life.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juin 2011 - 03:44 .

[Lumikki]

Calinstel wrote...

Actually no.  I use the sniper rifle for range, the AR's for normal ranges. And a rifle stock if too close.  It is not about using my 'favorite' weapon but about believablity and consistency.
ME1 was a nuclear sub, never needing refueling.
ME2 was a diesel boat. limited range.
It was not a step up in tech.  It was not even an equal trade off.  It was like watching Star Trek 2 and finding out photon torpedoes were replaced with the older rail guns.  Trilogies are supposed to have consistant techs, advancing yes but not going backwards.

Okey little more accuracy needed.

Is this uber weapons or lore feelings?

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juin 2011 - 04:05 .

[Lumikki]

I see. Basicly you do this.

ME1 lore > everyting else.

Sorry, but I disagree with you big times.

[konfeta]

is your entire argument essentially saying that ammo clips force the player to employ military tactics, and that the absence of finite ammo would make said tactics unnecessaary?

Well, ammo clips force the player to consider resource management, an element that is largely relevant to presence of tactics if the game is designed around it. It's an element you can't replicate with the overheat system, well, because it doesn't have the requisite mechanic to even begin attempting to.

However, as a whole, my entire argument would be that neither system inherently makes the game tactical by itself and it is largely dependent on other elements which you were so kind to list. So, in effect, this is mostly about which system Bioware feels more comfortable about designing the combat with. You can call it lazy, but in general, it worked hell of a lot better than their ME1 execution, so I think they have a better shot at making a fun game by working with ammo than without. I mean, it is theoretically possible to make a regular purpose car without tires, but why the hell would you ever want to? Resource management (in form of ammo) + all those shiny things you listed > no resource management + all those shiny things you listed. You might be able to force more tactics into combat without the "crutch of ammuniton," but... that's a fairly sadomasochistic way of going about it instead of using all readily available tools at your disposal.

So, I would say that the ammo system fits the idea of the kind of combat Bioware is trying to set up in ME better than overheat. They want you to move, they want you to aim well, they want you to switch for the best gun the situation calls for, they want you to constantly use powers to supplement your gunplay and visa versa (as opposed to the "iwin" buttons of ME1), etc., they want you do the actions above with calculated efficiency. An ammunition system for guns is inherently supportive of those concepts from standpoint of design and inherently encouraging of those concepts from the standpoint of the player. Overheat? I don't see how it does any of those. The only thing ME1 system supports is firing in bursts, which is a far more arbitrary and artifical limitation than ammo (i.e. resource management i.e. that natural thing every living thing does to survive) ever will be.

What would be wrong with allowing players to hang back and snipe while they direct their teammates, exactly?

I do love me some sniping, and I adore open world games such as Far Cry, Crysis, and STALKER that allow sniping as your primary mode of killing, I also recognize that the style of shooter that ME is trying to develop is at odds with the idea of playing a sniper. As you noticed, the execution in ME2 hurts snipers because they can't hang back and snipe without running out of ammo in certain situations. That's... a flaw with the ME2 system if you think sniping should be a viable form of combat. It is a notion I welcome you to examine. Look at the general design of ME2 environment pieces, overabundance of convenient cover, and a moslty close-medium range combat range. Look at the nature of powers available to the two "sniper" classes. If you think about it, the Sniper Rifle would fit a lot better with the current design direction by being a specialized weapon, a set piece weapon.

I would even go as far as to say that the sniper rifles should have been implemented in fashion closer to the heavy weapons - having their own, separate ammo pool that is inherently fairly large and difficult to replenish. It would allow for heavy sniping in arenas that invite it without turning them into railguns or forcing players into scavenging ammo every time they kill 10 dudes. IMO not doing this was the true sin of ME2's ammunition system. Universal ammuniton is makes implementing conceptually different weapons difficult. Imagine if melee or heavy weapons used thermal clips - it would have damaged those combat choices fairly spectacularly one way or the other.

In short, what's wrong with it? You would have to redesign the entirety of ME combat and environments just to support it. ME1 to ME2 went into a specific combat direction in far more ways than just appearance of ammuniton. It just happened to hurt sniper rifles as a main weapon along the way with no "easy" fixes in sight. It's too bad that Bioware didn't catch this and adjust the role of sniping at the start of ME2, and given that ME3 is basically ME2+, it looks like they still didn't catch this or simply don't care enough to divorce sniping from a combat design that dicks it at every turn.

Modifié par konfeta, 21 juin 2011 - 04:47 .

[Eurhetemec]

Calinstel wrote...

Actually no.  I use the sniper rifle for range, the AR's for normal ranges. And a rifle stock if too close.  It is not about using my 'favorite' weapon but about believablity and consistency.
ME1 was a nuclear sub, never needing refueling.
ME2 was a diesel boat. limited range.
It was not a step up in tech.  It was not even an equal trade off.  It was like watching Star Trek 2 and finding out photon torpedoes were replaced with the older rail guns.  Trilogies are supposed to have consistant techs, advancing yes but not going backwards.

That's an absolutely terrible analogy, Calinstel. You clearly don't understand the arguments being made here, about technology, so your whole "not going backwards" thing is really silly, as it's just your inability to find a good analogy that is confusing you.

The correct analogy is with a forgotten but once-common military technology, the Air Gun. Now they're just children's toys, and not manufactured much in military calibres or pressure (though they can still be found in exotic sporting models).

The Air Gun was potentially superior to gunpowder weaponry in almost exactly the same way that heatsink/overheat guns were potentially superior to "clip-based" weaponry. Specifically, you needed no big cartridge, no gunpowder, just the actual metal you were firing, so you could carry a lot more ammo (there were also advantages in terms of sound and visibility - only a crack, not a bang, and no smoke/fire), and further reloading was much easier as you didn't have to keep cleaning the gun and some were even breech-loaders centuries before a safe and reliable gunpowder breech-loader was viable. They were regarded by many as the future of weaponry and certainly "more advanced" than gunpowder weapons.

Yet we've forgotten about this tech almost entirely.

Why? Because power and the ability to reload quickly are more important than the ability to have huge amounts of ammo, in real combat. Guns aren't submarines. That analogy is DEAD WRONG. The whole point of a submarine is to never surface, never be heard (nuclear plants are far quieter than diesel ones), never be noticed. That is what a submarine is all about - STEALTH. That's why nuclear > diesel, despite the cost being dozens of times higher. Guns are not about that. There's little use in a gun that never needs reloading, if it keeps stopping firing just like as if it was being reloaded (which is what the heat system does). In a highly specialized "long term deep insertion" commando situation, it might be useful, but in the short engagements Shepard or most militaries get involved in? No.

What thermal clips let you do is fire harder and faster than was practical with heat sinks - we can safely assume any gun with a thermal clip would overheat in a few shots with the overheat system, because it's no longer trying to avoid overheating, it's trying to hit as hard as possible and just dumping the heat into the clip (i.e. all scram rails, no frictionless). They're also better for aggressive tactics, because dumping a TC takes less time than waiting on an overheat or cooldown (assuming stuff less than Frictionless X on a X-rank gun). In ME2, I can shoot stream after stream from my AR in a way that would lead to an overheat very quickly in mid-game ME1. So that's a distinct tactical advantage. The tactical disadvantage, running out of clips, actually only occurs very rarely in practice, even on Insanity, unless you sit in one piece of cover and just stay there.

I admit it would be awesome if, in ME3, there were a couple of old-style weapons (maybe a pistol and an AR), both of which sacrified power for not using thermal clips, but your analogy is bad and your general "tech going backwards" argument is totally invalid (I can give further examples of stuff like that happening historically, too).

Modifié par Eurhetemec, 21 juin 2011 - 04:53 .

[Eradyn]

I still support a hybrid system. I'd much rather have retained cooldown, maybe tweaked the system so that overheating was a real potential risk, but then also have limited thermal clips as an "oh ****" button for if you push a weapon into an overheated state.

One of the excuses before was that ME1's system encouraged spray and pray combat. ME2 doesn't really solve that problem, however, as thermal clips are ubiquitous and not universal (in that if you use them up in one weapon, you can swap to a different weapon and it still has full clips). They merely traded one problem for another and didn't solve the initial problem, which was that mods needed balancing and there wasn't great enough risk involved in an overheated weapon. Thermal clips can have a place right next to cooldown; it doesn't have to be either/or. Just imo.

[dreman9999]

Let me add my take on this.

Lore wise it makes sense.

Based on lore it was change because of the Geth war. Stating the rate of fire was improved because of the change but consider this....the Guns in ME1 had a fatal flaw.....sabotage can overheat them and you have no way to cool it down quickly once it is. The Geth is a pure tech race. Each Geth could have sabotage. So if you were fighting 50 geth, each one of them has the potential of sabotaging your guns. So all the geth have to do is over heat all your weapons and throw a Geth Prime at your squad as well as a mountain of Geth.

[Eurhetemec]

Calinstel wrote...

The analogy with the subs was not about guns but about the underlying tech.  In that respect it was correct.  Nuclear subs do NOT require pulling into port for fuel, whereas Diesel boats had limited range.  The same thing that thermals clips did to the weapons in ME2.

You don't get it. A gun doesn't need to act like a submarine in this regard. It's a false analogy. Talking about the underlying tech misses the point - tech has to serve a military purpose, and the military purpose of subs and guns are very different.

Nice info on the airgun but pointless.  You stated yourself that they were potentially better but were not implemented .  ME weapons were and then altered backwards.

Still don't get it, and if that's due to my poor explanation, I apologise. They were implemented as well as they could be, but gunpowder *overtook* them, because despite their significant advantages, the advantages gunpowder weapons had were more militarily useful.

No matter how you argue, running out of ammo (thermal clips) will never be superior unless each round takes out 20 or more enemy.  A weapon using the thermal clips is limited. 

This is where your logic falls to tiny pieces. You don't get how a firefight works. A firefight is not won by "the gun with more ammo". It's not usually a matter of two dudes blazing away until one guy runs out and say "Ah crud!", then the other guy comes and shoots him. That's exceedingly rare. A firefight is won by "the guy who kills the other guy". Once the firefight is over, the guy with "limited" ammo can typically resupply. The guy who kills the other guy may do so for many reasons, and being able to shoot a whole bunch of clips worth of shots in a row will often be more useful than being able to fire hundreds and hundreds of shots at a slow pace with little breaks (as overheat works). You must remember that TCs get refueled between or during fights - even in real life, people get more ammo between combats.

Certainly I can see fights in early and mid ME1 where I'd rather have had the TC system, because I was trying to prevent getting overrun or dealing with a sudden group of enemies, and I can see fights in ME2 where the overheat system would have been nice - but really only sniping fights where both me and the other guy were a long way apart.

What thermals clips also do is run out of the ability to shoot back.

Yes, but if the other guys are all already dead, that doesn't matter!

Overheat ALSO runs out the ability to shoot back, and much more often, but instead of it being fixed by going and grabbing a TC, it's fixed by waiting a few seconds - seconds in which a dude might come around your cover and murder you.

And, as I said in my last post.  It is consistency in the universe that means more to me than anything else.  Had ME1 started with clips, okay.  It did not.

Forgive me.  I will not change my mind but I do not expect to change anyone elses either. 

I forgive you for loving the overheat system, but your arguments are junk.

Just stick to "I <3 overheat and I want it back!", and you are on fair terms with everyone. I can't dispute your love for overheat. I'm sure it's a pure love!  When you try to make "logical" arguments for overheat, though, you keep tripping over yourself, because you don't seem get how firefights work.

[The Spamming Troll]

Lumikki wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

overheating guns means i can at the very least have sdecent burst steam of bullets(which would promote advancement into the overdone melee system), without needing a reload. TCs also means i have to run around outside of cover to accomplish a game mechanic that says my sniper rifle toting infiltrator carries a measly 11 shots.

And here comes the difference between them, with TC you can't just keep shooting forever, you need to run for TC or change weapon, because out of ammos. That is the hole point. It creates tactical management of you weapons. With overheat system you can just sit in the cover and wait and use same weapon forever.

why do you keep bringing up firing forever? the overheating guns would overheat if you fired to long.

Because I'm not talking that you have to take small break from shooting because overheat. I'm talking that after the small wait you can continue shooting again with same weapon. Meaning you don't have to do anything else than small wait while sitting safe and you do same action again forever.

Shoot- wait- shoot-wait-shoot-wait-shoot-wait

In overheat it's like this forever, it doesn't change ever. Unless you have nothing to shoot.

This isn't same with termal clips. You have first same kind of action as overheat, but when you run out of ammo, situation change, you have to do something else. What you do is players choises. But you cant' keep doing same action with same gun forever.

So, the small wait (overheat) or reload (clip) isn't the issue. It's the never ending ammos what's the problem..

whats wrong with using my favorite gun forever instead of using running through my ammo ppols of my assault rifle, followed then my SMG, then my pistol? insteading of running out of my arbitrary number of bullets, im playing a game that allows me the freedom to choose what weapon i want to use and when. i just see way too many pros to a weapon that overheats compared to ME2s simplistic ammo system. i expect more brain activity out of a bioware game.

Exactly, you are looking RPG combat. The God gun combat as having you own best favor weapon to fix it all. Without ever have to do any effort for that cause. Like run to pick clips and risk you life because of it. No, you want to sit in safe and wait. Actually I'm sure you also want higher armors as better defence, because you don't want to be forced behind that cover in that passive combat style. What is again one step to closer RPG combat. God armor too. What means we are back to ME1 combat style.

so thermal clips are awesomebecause it means you run out of ammo??? well then why dont they just give every weapon 12 bullets tottal. then im sure ill HAVE to be doing alot of running around. but thats not what i want. i dont want 12 sniper shots in my sniper rifle, just becasue someone thinks im not going to move positions. id rather have the gameplay push my character to different spots, then running out of an arbitrary number of bullets. im glad i dont care to complain about other classes weaknesses but i really cant understand how an infiltrator only gets 11 friggin sniper bullets.

im having a real hard time following your point.

packardbell wrote...

 If your gun was upgraded
enough..you could fire continously with no worry of it overheating,
that was just stupidly overpowered.

honestly, i hate seeing someone post comments like this. your modding actually made your gun put out pretty lame damage. if anything that gun you used was underpowered.

i really feel bad for people who got firctionless materials and think "hey this is stupid i modded my gun this way."

i
bet your the same person that hates insanity becuas it takes so long to
down enemies.....oh thats right, becaus you modded your gun to suck.

BAH!

[dreman9999]

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

Lumikki wrote...

The Spamming Troll wrote...

overheating guns means i can at the very least have sdecent burst steam of bullets(which would promote advancement into the overdone melee system), without needing a reload. TCs also means i have to run around outside of cover to accomplish a game mechanic that says my sniper rifle toting infiltrator carries a measly 11 shots.

And here comes the difference between them, with TC you can't just keep shooting forever, you need to run for TC or change weapon, because out of ammos. That is the hole point. It creates tactical management of you weapons. With overheat system you can just sit in the cover and wait and use same weapon forever.

why do you keep bringing up firing forever? the overheating guns would overheat if you fired to long.

Because I'm not talking that you have to take small break from shooting because overheat. I'm talking that after the small wait you can continue shooting again with same weapon. Meaning you don't have to do anything else than small wait while sitting safe and you do same action again forever.

Shoot- wait- shoot-wait-shoot-wait-shoot-wait

In overheat it's like this forever, it doesn't change ever. Unless you have nothing to shoot.

This isn't same with termal clips. You have first same kind of action as overheat, but when you run out of ammo, situation change, you have to do something else. What you do is players choises. But you cant' keep doing same action with same gun forever.

So, the small wait (overheat) or reload (clip) isn't the issue. It's the never ending ammos what's the problem..

whats wrong with using my favorite gun forever instead of using running through my ammo ppols of my assault rifle, followed then my SMG, then my pistol? insteading of running out of my arbitrary number of bullets, im playing a game that allows me the freedom to choose what weapon i want to use and when. i just see way too many pros to a weapon that overheats compared to ME2s simplistic ammo system. i expect more brain activity out of a bioware game.

Exactly, you are looking RPG combat. The God gun combat as having you own best favor weapon to fix it all. Without ever have to do any effort for that cause. Like run to pick clips and risk you life because of it. No, you want to sit in safe and wait. Actually I'm sure you also want higher armors as better defence, because you don't want to be forced behind that cover in that passive combat style. What is again one step to closer RPG combat. God armor too. What means we are back to ME1 combat style.

so thermal clips are awesomebecause it means you run out of ammo??? well then why dont they just give every weapon 12 bullets tottal. then im sure ill HAVE to be doing alot of running around. but thats not what i want. i dont want 12 sniper shots in my sniper rifle, just becasue someone thinks im not going to move positions. id rather have the gameplay push my character to different spots, then running out of an arbitrary number of bullets. im glad i dont care to complain about other classes weaknesses but i really cant understand how an infiltrator only gets 11 friggin sniper bullets.

im having a real hard time following your point.

packardbell wrote...

 If your gun was upgraded
enough..you could fire continously with no worry of it overheating,
that was just stupidly overpowered.

honestly, i hate seeing someone post comments like this. your modding actually made your gun put out pretty lame damage. if anything that gun you used was underpowered.

i really feel bad for people who got firctionless materials and think "hey this is stupid i modded my gun this way."

i
bet your the same person that hates insanity becuas it takes so long to
down enemies.....oh thats right, becaus you modded your gun to suck.

BAH!

It not about moving, it balancing. If they gave the Widow unlimited ammo, it would brake the game. You would just sit at one spot ans easilly snip everything. The ammo limit just to make sure that the widow is not a god tier gun.

[The Baconer]

They could at least make the supposedly universal Thermal Clips consistent with what is said in the Codex.

[Lumikki]

The Spamming Troll wrote...


so thermal clips are awesomebecause it means you run out of ammo???

Running out of ammo change the combat dynamic. Meaning you can't just do one same action forever. It force you to do choise, you want really bad to use same weapon or do you consider using other. It's players choise. But if you like some weapon a lot, you try to make you gameplay so that you have as much ammo in that gun as possible. It's affeting you gameplay tactics. If you how ever still run out of ammo and want to use that same weapon, then you have to take risk and run open area to get more ammos. Running out ammo is start of chain reaction what change combat tactics based how player wants to play it.

i dont want 12 sniper shots in my sniper rifle, just becasue someone thinks im not going to move positions. id rather have the gameplay push my character to different spots, then running out of an arbitrary number of bullets.

I ques we think combat little differently. I want to feel that my character is not like God. I want that avoiding enemy fire actually means something. Not just sit in my ass in some safe spot and shoot with my uber weapon. I want my combat experience be active, tactical and not passive, simple. I don't want my armor defense go so high that I don't anymore have to care enemy fire. I want multible different options how to deal situation, not just one best way..

im having a real hard time following your point.

I noticed.  It's also about weapon balance and how different they can feel. That's why sniper rifle has only few ammos, because it's not ment to use to every situation, it's very powerfull tool for special cases.

Modifié par Lumikki, 21 juin 2011 - 06:21 .

[Eurhetemec]

Calinstel wrote...

And I forgive you for misunderstanding.  ME is a game.  YOU obviously don't understand that.  As such, continuity is more important to me than anything else.  Simple as that.
And in SciFi, no argument is actually valid or invalid.  They are all subjective points of view.
EDIT:  Sorry about the typo.  Dropped the mis. 

/facepalm.

If you'd just said "They are all subjective points of view." rather than trying to make "logical" arguments for overheating, I could have saved myself a bunch of posts!

As for continuity being so important to you, why is it that you want to break ME's continuity and go back to ME1 guns? That doesn't make any sense. It's a much worse continuity to have people go from overheat to TC then suddenly and magically back to overheat despite the reasons given for TCs. The best continuity possible would be to simply add a couple of overheat guns to ME3, as I've said, but keep TC for most guns.

I mean, let's be real, BioWare explained TCs. Their explanation makes as much sense as most other explanations in ME's tech. You don't like it, but that's a matter of taste. Ultimately, like the rest, it's for story and/or gameplay reasons. You can't pretend that TCs appeared out of nowhere with no explanation. They're now part of ME's continuity, and removing them now would cause continuity issues.

[FlyingWalrus]

Claiming that "no argument is valid or invalid" is the most obvious copout in the world. In fiction, there exists this little concept called "suspension of disbelief." As long as the matter is justified and doesn't break the laws of the milieu, it should be fine. Thermal clips do not violate the logic of the ME universe.

The questions that arise can often be answered by looking at other facets of the universe. 'Incompatible' thermal clips? Doesn't matter, the omni-tool can rapidly break them down and remanufacture them in an acceptable configuration.

And I also like how no one has taken time to consider the implications of loading guns with blocks of metal. That can't make them very light. Being heavy is usually a detriment for guns except in the case of monsters with heavy recoil (in which case the weight would absorb some of the kickback), but technically miniature mass effect drivers like the ones in most guns in ME wouldn't have such a thing as recoil except maybe from the machinery inside the gun actuating.

So. Yeah. Don't think about it too hard in terms of the lore. Lore tends to break down under scrutiny.

[dreman9999]

Calinstel wrote...

Eurhetemec wrote...

Calinstel wrote...

Actually no.  I use the sniper rifle for range, the AR's for normal ranges. And a rifle stock if too close.  It is not about using my 'favorite' weapon but about believablity and consistency.
ME1 was a nuclear sub, never needing refueling.
ME2 was a diesel boat. limited range.
It was not a step up in tech.  It was not even an equal trade off.  It was like watching Star Trek 2 and finding out photon torpedoes were replaced with the older rail guns.  Trilogies are supposed to have consistant techs, advancing yes but not going backwards.

That's an absolutely terrible analogy, Calinstel. You clearly don't understand the arguments being made here, about technology, so your whole "not going backwards" thing is really silly, as it's just your inability to find a good analogy that is confusing you.

The correct analogy is with a forgotten but once-common military technology, the Air Gun. Now they're just children's toys, and not manufactured much in military calibres or pressure (though they can still be found in exotic sporting models).

The Air Gun was potentially superior to gunpowder weaponry in almost exactly the same way that heatsink/overheat guns were potentially superior to "clip-based" weaponry. Specifically, you needed no big cartridge, no gunpowder, just the actual metal you were firing, so you could carry a lot more ammo (there were also advantages in terms of sound and visibility - only a crack, not a bang, and no smoke/fire), and further reloading was much easier as you didn't have to keep cleaning the gun and some were even breech-loaders centuries before a safe and reliable gunpowder breech-loader was viable. They were regarded by many as the future of weaponry and certainly "more advanced" than gunpowder weapons.

Yet we've forgotten about this tech almost entirely.

Why? Because power and the ability to reload quickly are more important than the ability to have huge amounts of ammo, in real combat. Guns aren't submarines. That analogy is DEAD WRONG. The whole point of a submarine is to never surface, never be heard (nuclear plants are far quieter than diesel ones), never be noticed. That is what a submarine is all about - STEALTH. That's why nuclear > diesel, despite the cost being dozens of times higher. Guns are not about that. There's little use in a gun that never needs reloading, if it keeps stopping firing just like as if it was being reloaded (which is what the heat system does). In a highly specialized "long term deep insertion" commando situation, it might be useful, but in the short engagements Shepard or most militaries get involved in? No.

What thermal clips let you do is fire harder and faster than was practical with heat sinks - we can safely assume any gun with a thermal clip would overheat in a few shots with the overheat system, because it's no longer trying to avoid overheating, it's trying to hit as hard as possible and just dumping the heat into the clip (i.e. all scram rails, no frictionless). They're also better for aggressive tactics, because dumping a TC takes less time than waiting on an overheat or cooldown (assuming stuff less than Frictionless X on a X-rank gun). In ME2, I can shoot stream after stream from my AR in a way that would lead to an overheat very quickly in mid-game ME1. So that's a distinct tactical advantage. The tactical disadvantage, running out of clips, actually only occurs very rarely in practice, even on Insanity, unless you sit in one piece of cover and just stay there.

I admit it would be awesome if, in ME3, there were a couple of old-style weapons (maybe a pistol and an AR), both of which sacrified power for not using thermal clips, but your analogy is bad and your general "tech going backwards" argument is totally invalid (I can give further examples of stuff like that happening historically, too).

The analogy with the subs was not about guns but about the underlying tech.  In that respect it was correct.  Nuclear subs do NOT require pulling into port for fuel, whereas Diesel boats had limited range.  The same thing that thermals clips did to the weapons in ME2.

Nice info on the airgun but pointless.  You stated yourself that they were potentially better but were not implemented .  ME weapons were and then altered backwards.

No matter how you argue, running out of ammo (thermal clips) will never be superior unless each round takes out 20 or more enemy.  A weapon using the thermal clips is limited. 

What thermals clips also do is run out of the ability to shoot back.

And, as I said in my last post.  It is consistency in the universe that means more to me than anything else.  Had ME1 started with clips, okay.  It did not.

Forgive me.  I will not change my mind but I do not expect to change anyone elses either. 

I can easilly change you mind on this.
Lets say that that your going to battle and you are presented two guns.
The first gun has unlimited ammo but it jams all the time and your enemy can jam it with though at anytime if they have the power and theirs nothing you can do to stop the gun from jamming.
The Second gun does more damage and last longer  but has limited ammo but you can take your enemies ammo to restore your ammo.
Which gun will you take with you?

Modifié par dreman9999, 21 juin 2011 - 06:29 .

[The Baconer]

dreman9999 wrote...
I can easilly change you mind on this.
Lets say that that your going to battle and you are presented two guns.
The first gun has unlimited ammo but it jams all the time and your enemy can jam it with though at anytime if they have the power and theirs nothing you can do to stop the gun from jamming.
The Second gun does more damage and last longer  but has limited ammo but you can take your enemies ammo to restore your ammo.
Which gun will you take with you?

It's easy to make skewed analogies.

Modifié par The Baconer, 21 juin 2011 - 06:34 .

[stonbw1]

Cooldown seemed unique. The thermal clips caused me to play like a blah shooter, rather than if I was actually Shepard. Case in point: In ME2, how many times did you change clips to reload in a lull of the fight, when you had at least half a clip in your weapon? Hell, I did it constantly, which you would rarely do if you were in 'real life' and didn't know if there were spare clips up ahead.