1002 réponses à ce sujet

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Soldiers can learn how to more effectively use their weapon, it's part of their training.

Again, that does not affect the mechanisms of the guns in any way.

Who says the mechanisims are affected?

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Who says the mechanisims are affected?

Because it doesn't matter if the soldier becomes more skilled with the weapon. A hit in the same place on the same target should do the same damage, unless different ammo is used.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 21 août 2011 - 07:51 .

[Fixers0]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Who says the mechanisims are affected?

Because it doesn't matter if the soldier becomes more skilled with the weapon. A hit in the same place on the same target should do the same damage, unless different ammo is used.

You don't know much about guns do you?

[Arppis]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

Who says the mechanisims are affected?

Because it doesn't matter if the soldier becomes more skilled with the weapon. A hit in the same place on the same target should do the same damage, unless different ammo is used.

Soldier should be more accurate thou and have less recoil in guns. IMO! 

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...


The heat will sooner or later break the rifle completely if you just let it cool off like that. That is, if it was so in the game. With thermal clips, the heat is absorbed into the clip (which is pretty much how the Normandy's stealth system work, so don't tell me it can't be done), which you can eject, allowing a longer lifetime for the gun. It makes sense in the universe.

Source?

Thermal clips were invented to improve ROF, read the codex

Someone With Mass wrote...
If you as a player have a problem with it...

(snip)

Unofortunatly we do.

Oh, God. This forum and its inability to think outside the box...

Guess why the thermal clips are glowing and very hot when you eject them.

I have read the Codex, I simply imagined another reason why thermal clips where invented, beyond getting rid of the cooldown. Metal will change its physical and sometimes chemical properties if rapidly cooled and heated for a certain amount of time. Unless it's made out of a material that can withstand such temperature changes, which I'd imagine is pretty expensive to produce guns out of.

And the first thermal clip system was made so it came to a point where the gun was starting to overheat and the player was given the choice to either eject the clip or wait for it to cool down. It didn't past the testing stage. They liked the current system better. It was more convenient for the gameplay.

[Someone With Mass]

Fixers0 wrote...

You don't know much about guns do you?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that real guns will do more damage/achieve more penetration/kinetic energy if I place them in the hands of professionals, compared to normal people shooting at the exact same thing?

Yeah...good luck with that.

[sympathy4saren]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

You don't know much about guns do you?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that real guns will do more damage/achieve more penetration/kinetic energy if I place them in the hands of professionals, compared to normal people shooting at the exact same thing?

Yeah...good luck with that.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a Vanguard Shepard would be as accurate and talented with a gun than a Soldier or Infiltrator?

Good luck with that.

The point of classes is to have variable gameplay and give variance to what skills are. It helps define the class and should be governed by statistics and perks. In no way, shape or form would a Vanguard be as talented with guns as a Soldier.

[Sgt Stryker]

Fixers0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

You are allowed to do so, and so do I, but it's no were near as offending as Ammo being a 'skill'.

Oh, but increased weapon damage and rate of fire being a skill is perfectly fine, right? Even if it has nothing to do with the weapon itself?

Soldiers can learn how to more effectively use their weapon, it's part of their training.

That would make sense if Shepard was straight out of boot camp. However, this simply is not true. Shepard is already an experienced officer by the events of ME1. Moreover, if we take gameplay mechanics at face value, they suggest that throughout the events of ME1 (let's assume an upper limit of a few months), Shepard experienced an increase in combat effectiveness of several orders of magnitude. Hopefully you now see yet another problem with treating gameplay mechanics as lore.

[Someone With Mass]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a Vanguard Shepard would be as accurate and talented with a gun than a Soldier or Infiltrator?

Good luck with that.

The point of classes is to have variable gameplay and give variance to what skills are. It helps define the class and should be governed by statistics and perks. In no way, shape or form would a Vanguard be as talented with guns as a Soldier.

Apparently, people think that N7 is just a nice little insignia.

Of course Shepard would be efficient with any weapon regardless of class. It's what he was trained to do. As shown in ME3.

It's merely a gameplay restriction to not make every class outshine the Soldier.

Modifié par Someone With Mass, 21 août 2011 - 08:22 .

[marshalleck]

sympathy4saren wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

You don't know much about guns do you?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that real guns will do more damage/achieve more penetration/kinetic energy if I place them in the hands of professionals, compared to normal people shooting at the exact same thing?

Yeah...good luck with that.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a Vanguard Shepard would be as accurate and talented with a gun than a Soldier or Infiltrator?

Good luck with that.

The point of classes is to have variable gameplay and give variance to what skills are. It helps define the class and should be governed by statistics and perks. In no way, shape or form would a Vanguard be as talented with guns as a Soldier.

 What you say or think doesn't matter. All Shepards can use weapons with equal effectiveness. Deal with it. Arguing won't change anything at this point.

[Gatt9]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
Maybe you should look up a certain group of videos, to see why Mass Effect 2 fails to establish a proper suspesion of disbelief, the baseline for all Sci-Fi stories.

Or maybe you should just tell me, so I don't have to waste my time with it.

It's really easy to see past things like thermal clips, which were explained, by the way, but not for BSN. Nope. If people can't even get past that little insignificant detail, then there's no point for them to even play the game.

Maybe I should start with not believing that Shepard can store a hundred and fifty pieces of armor, weapons and upgrades in his pocket while running around on foot. It's that level of pointless.

Actually,  it isn't "Really easy to see past things like thermal clips".

Primarily because more than a few of us have built our own computers,  using heatsinks,  and we've got a pretty good grasp of how it works.  Then there's the people who have/are studying Chemistry or Engineering,  to whom the whole concept jumps right out as blatantly wrong.

It's the first rule of Fantasy/Sci-Fi,  never take something people are familiar with and consistently use,  and assign it magic powers.  You can't claim that everyone in the future eats fire instead of food,  people are just going to stop paying attention to your story and start thinking "WTF?".

Further,  all of the reasons given for them are invalidated by their own game.  I'm killing the same things at the same speed as I was in the first game,  I don't see an improvement.

You're welcome to complain about the armor/weapons thing,  but before you do,  you should probably know that it's like that because people who didn't like RPG's complained about limited inventory and encumbrance,  kind of like how they're complaining about attributes and experience points today.

Which really should be throwing up a major red flag for people,  because everytime you remove a mechanic,  you start negatively impacting the rest of the mechanics.  Kind of like how ME2's "Experience system" was completely nonsensical since it had no relationship to the actual difficulty of the mission and you got the exact same number no matter what you did.

Modifié par Gatt9, 21 août 2011 - 08:54 .

[sympathy4saren]

Someone With Mass wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a Vanguard Shepard would be as accurate and talented with a gun than a Soldier or Infiltrator?

Good luck with that.

The point of classes is to have variable gameplay and give variance to what skills are. It helps define the class and should be governed by statistics and perks. In no way, shape or form would a Vanguard be as talented with guns as a Soldier.

Apparently, people think that N7 is just a nice little insignia.

Of course Shepard would be efficient with any weapon regardless of class. It's what he was trained to do. As shown in ME3.

It's merely a gameplay restriction to not make every class outshine the Soldier.

As shown in ME3, huh? You're right, then. It's to be expected from a third person shooter.

[Someone With Mass]

That solution is easy. You're overlooking the functions of a game. I am fully capable of overlooking details like that, since it's science-fiction. If something is really bugging me, like...how ships using mass relays can just travel from one end of the galaxy to the other without running into anything hazardous, I can just try to not think about it and just play the damn game. Getting worked up over something so trivial serves no purpose at all.

By the way, I didn't see anyone complain about the Normandy's stealth system, which is really impossible to even operate effectively, since the smallest energy reading can be picked up against the dark reaches of space.

[littlezack]

Fixers0 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Oh, so that's why we were told practically nothing about the alien races' cultures and civilizations in ME1. Okay.

If you talk to squadmates or do some side missions, you get a basic insight on Alien societies, besides, does an Alliance marine really needs to be botherd with quarian lifestyle they are there to protect Humanity's interests.

Someone With Mass wrote...
Of course ME2 is set in the universe. It's a sequel.

Unlike Mass Effect 1 were the game is build around the universe establishing certain elements like politics, characters, technology, Mass Effect 2 is for the most part a generic shooter game, the entire context of what was going on had nothing to do with Mass effect as, show by the numerous inconsistencies, plotholes and retcons, it was just using Mass Effect as a shell to make it distinguishable from other shooter games.

Firstly, people around here constantly demonstrate they don't know what a retcon or a plothole really is, and just like to use the word to make themselves sound smart. I don't believe you're any different.

Secondly, the idea that you learn nothing about alien culture in ME2 is, frankly complete and utter crap that makes me think you didn't even play the game. You learn about the Mass Effect universe in ME2 than you do in ME1.

You learn the truth about the geth and how they met Sovereign.
You learn how Quarian society works firsthand.
You learn how Krogan society works firsthand and get a much better idea of the way they live.
You learn about Justicars and Ardat-Yakshi, a big part of Asari culture.
You meet the Drell for the first time and learn about them and their connection with the Hanar.

And I could go on, if so inclined. In ME1, you're basically just told stuff about the alien cultures. In ME2, you actually go there and experience it.

[littlezack]

Gatt9 wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...
Maybe you should look up a certain group of videos, to see why Mass Effect 2 fails to establish a proper suspesion of disbelief, the baseline for all Sci-Fi stories.

Or maybe you should just tell me, so I don't have to waste my time with it.

It's really easy to see past things like thermal clips, which were explained, by the way, but not for BSN. Nope. If people can't even get past that little insignificant detail, then there's no point for them to even play the game.

Maybe I should start with not believing that Shepard can store a hundred and fifty pieces of armor, weapons and upgrades in his pocket while running around on foot. It's that level of pointless.

Actually,  it isn't "Really easy to see past things like thermal clips".

He probably should rephrase. It's really easy to see past things like thermal clips if you're not a ridiculously obsessive jerk.

[Dionkey]

No one responded to my last post and instead just started talking about why they didn't like the game. Guys, this isn't a plot hole thread, this is whether the game is an RPG or not.

[littlezack]

Dionkey wrote...

No one responded to my last post and instead just started talking about why they didn't like the game.

That's what it always comes back to, eventually. Hell, if we're being honest, that's what the argument really was to start with.

Modifié par littlezack, 21 août 2011 - 09:12 .

[sympathy4saren]

A Vanguard is a biotic warrior. And since you are human, and it takes intensive training and focus to utilize the implant, it only makes sense that they are as potent and talented with conventional weapons like Soldiers, who spent their focus and training utilizing conventional weapons on the battlefield in various situations....

Get out of here. That is just plain dumb.

[Dionkey]

littlezack wrote...

Dionkey wrote...

No one responded to my last post and instead just started talking about why they didn't like the game.

That's what it always comes back to, eventually. Hell, if we're being honest, that's what the argument really was to start with.

I like ME2, I just don't think it was an RPG. If you told me ME2 was an RPG, I would tell you it's terrible. If you told me it's a sci-fi action-shooter with a deep plot, I would say it's amazing.

[littlezack]

sympathy4saren wrote...

A Vanguard is a biotic warrior. And since you are human, and it takes intensive training and focus to utilize the implant, it only makes sense that they are as potent and talented with conventional weapons like Soldiers, who spent their focus and training utilizing conventional weapons on the battlefield in various situations....

Get out of here. That is just plain dumb.

Shepard's not just a biotic warrior, though - he's N7. Elite. The best of the best of the best of the best of the best. It means he's reached the highest level of mastery a marine can get. Even before ME1 starts, he's already a consumate soldier.

He wouldn't have gotten that rating if he couldn't shoot straight.

[Someone With Mass]

sympathy4saren wrote...

A Vanguard is a biotic warrior. And since you are human, and it takes intensive training and focus to utilize the implant, it only makes sense that they are as potent and talented with conventional weapons like Soldiers, who spent their focus and training utilizing conventional weapons on the battlefield in various situations....

Get out of here. That is just plain dumb.

Basic training with firearms. I'm pretty sure that's a must in the military.

Just because Shepard isn't using assault rifles doesn't mean he can't use them at all.

[sympathy4saren]

littlezack wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

A Vanguard is a biotic warrior. And since you are human, and it takes intensive training and focus to utilize the implant, it only makes sense that they are as potent and talented with conventional weapons like Soldiers, who spent their focus and training utilizing conventional weapons on the battlefield in various situations....

Get out of here. That is just plain dumb.

Shepard's not just a biotic warrior, though - he's N7. Elite. The best of the best of the best of the best of the best. It means he's reached the highest level of mastery a marine can get. Even before ME1 starts, he's already a consumate soldier.

He wouldn't have gotten that rating if he couldn't shoot straight.

I'm not saying he can't shoot. He is elite, but a Soldier N7 must not be too Elite if a biotic can do twice as much just as well as a Soldier N7. Very elite, the Soldier is.....yeah

[sympathy4saren]

marshalleck wrote...

sympathy4saren wrote...

Someone With Mass wrote...

Fixers0 wrote...

You don't know much about guns do you?

Are you honestly trying to tell me that real guns will do more damage/achieve more penetration/kinetic energy if I place them in the hands of professionals, compared to normal people shooting at the exact same thing?

Yeah...good luck with that.

Are you honestly trying to tell me that a Vanguard Shepard would be as accurate and talented with a gun than a Soldier or Infiltrator?

Good luck with that.

The point of classes is to have variable gameplay and give variance to what skills are. It helps define the class and should be governed by statistics and perks. In no way, shape or form would a Vanguard be as talented with guns as a Soldier.

 What you say or think doesn't matter. All Shepards can use weapons with equal effectiveness. Deal with it. Arguing won't change anything at this point.

"Deal with it" and "arguing won't change anything". Lol...always good tools in argumentation to provide support for a position...

[sympathy4saren]

I think I just demonstrated how the class system is now extremely unbalanced. Soldiers are much weaker than biotics just due to the fact a biotics can do twice as much as a Soldier.

Strike 2