355 réponses à ce sujet

[howl3d]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Yeah, let's have different kinds of thermal clips, even though they're all doing the exact same thing, so the people in the universe must carry more of them in more pockets if they happen to have different guns and can't pick some up from dead enemies or enemy armories.

That sounds like such a great tactical choice.

well put

[Tony Gunslinger]

Fixers0 wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

As I've said before, unlimited ammo is superior tech, no doubt about that. But overheating is not. They're two different things. Just as there's no reason why the thermal clips in my SMG can't be used for my SR, there is no reason why gun makers can't put in an automatic lockup when it reaches a certain threshold such that its coolsdown time is equal to or faster than the time to reload a conventional mag. Overheat is just another game mechanic, not superior tech.

 Your missing the point here , With overheating weapons you aren't dependant on scavenging the area fo deposits of thermal clips thus making it a superior technology.

No, you're missing the point. I'll just copy and paste my own post again, because that's what you should be replying to.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
If your gun builds up x-amount of heat and cools at y-rate, that is not a pattern you can memorize, especially for ME2 guns in which the length of shooting time and fire rates varies a lot more than ME1 guns. If your AR overheats at 50 rounds, and you shoot 22 then stop for 2.12323 seconds, do you really know how many rounds you can shoot at that given instant? How many shots afer 2.327 secs? 2.451? There is no way for you to know unless you're a human stopwatch/calculator. If there ever was a real test with equipment tracking eye movements, I guarantee you that it will show that you take your eyes off of the battlefield exponentially more with overheating weapons than with a conventional ammo count, which you only need to look just once or twice during an entire fight. Running out of ammo happens once in a fight, overheating can happen every time you shoot.

Also, I know for a fact that shooting an entire clip of the Predator + a reload is exactly the time for most of my powers to cool down. Therefore I can constantly apply max damage without ever keeping my eyes off the battlefield (power>shoot>power>shoot). That combination of a consistent cooldown time + a consistent shooting time puts me in a rhythm so that I can plan ahead attacks. Fluid gameplay. You can't do this as effectively with overheating guns that may cool down .5 secs or 1.5 secs, depending on how much you've shot before.

Again, put duct tape on your screen and test it out for yourself if you don't believe it. Get a recording equipment set-up and prove your points if you really believe them. I’ve done it, and I’ve recorded them.

And here's a fact: all the full-time designated naysayers here on BSN for 2+ years (you know who you are) who have been constantly saying biotics are pointless because of defense, that the game is dumbed down, that thermal clips suck, that weapon-x suck, etc etc etc haven’t produced a single shred of evidence to back up their claims. Well gee, I wonder why.

[FoxShadowblade]

If Tony Gunslinger has posted that before, why was he forced to copy and paste it?

That ends the conversation, there is no better argument then that.

[cindercatz]

I loved the overheat system, as a sniper. I knew I had one shot with my infiltrator, two with my adept sniper, based on my gun builds, and every shot counted. Great fun. And I just switched off to pistol at short range. That's unless I was having to move and shoot too often, in which case you could honestly just run and fire with the sniper at extreme close range; just fire when the reticle turns red.

There was always a tradeoff. Wanna spray and pray? Then you customize for heat and recoil. Wanna be an efficient killer? Then you customize for power, precision. Not everybody played spray and pray, with unlimited fire. I never did. I always prefer one shot, one kill, as close as I can get to that, and every squaddie's weapons were specialized to match particular kinds of enemies, with their own gameplay tweaks. Just because you could spec out your guns for spray and pray doesn't mean you were really better off doing so.

I also enjoy the animation and rhythm of ejecting the thermal clips and getting right back to firing. What I don't enjoy, and don't understand the appeal of, is scrounging for ammo clips after every minor flare up, basically running a few extra circles before moving on for no good reason. They don't truly add anything to gameplay.

The solution is simple for me. You allow a finite number of thermal clips, you carry them into battle just like in ME2, but the guns also have a heat system. When the weapon overheats, you can then choose whether to expend a thermal clip, wait for the gun to cool, or swap weapons. If you're disciplined and efficient with your weapon, you won't have to worry about using your clips. If you're overheating too much, you can run out of clips, and at that point that gun can no longer be fired without waiting for the heat system.

You truly reward efficiency, but also allow for unlimited ammo, through gameplay alone. No running around picking up random thermals. If you want seamless firing, then be sharp about if. If not, the consequence is in the way you use your weapon.

[Nerevar-as]

Good points, but I doubt most of us would think that far. I think it would have worked better if they had said new tech increased weapon power but because of that heat sink couldn´t disipate heat fast enough. Gameplay is different enough to justify this. Besides, thermal clips also work in vacuum. I think with no atmosphere radiation is the only way for weapon cooling, so in Luna mission ME1 weapons shouldn´t have worked.

[Shepard the Leper]

Bluko wrote...

You see that underlined part of your statement? Thermal Clips didn't really change much if anything except the need to look for ammo every so often. Which honestly I do not find all that interesting in shooters generally speaking. (Unless it's a survival type game.) Picking up new weapons is one thing, but walking over dead bodies to refill your guns ammo has always struck me as a rather poor if not outright silly feature in most shooters.

Anyone who considers TC to be "lore breaking" should consider auto-looting enemies who have been tossed off the map, or have been sniped a hundred yards away, completely ridiculous. Searching corpses for something useful isn't exactly fun, but it at least makes sense.

And this is exactly why I'm so against TCs. They did not improve or make the gameplay anymore enjoyable, exciting, or challenging IMO. I see it as a largely pointless addition made to accomodate those who are only familiar with modern shooters. Maybe I'm just crazy, but I like to play different games to play different games. Mass Effect offered something different to other games and I enjoyed that despite its flaws. It annoys me that some insist every game must play exactly like *insert popular game here* otherwise it's no good.

I play games to have fun, I do not play games because they are somehow different.

TC do make the game more challenging - having a limited supply of component X is always more challenging than having an unlimited supply of component X. Whether you or I consider that to be more "exciting or enjoyable" is subjective.

Looking what others are / have been doing is always a good thing. DA2 used the ME conversation system because most people consider that to be an improvement over the "traditional" system. It's beyond me why this is considered a bad thing. Bioware did the same thing with gunplay - they evaluated the best "shooter" games out there and used the stuff that could improve their own game. To me you sound a lot like somebody who considers everything used in other shooters to be bad by definition - which isn't an argument at all.

Also as for the relevance to "looting". In ME1 you never needed to loot bodies and I liked that. And you still loot crates in ME2. Only difference is instead of tangible items you get an upgrade which generally requires you mine some planets to activate it. Also looking for items is generally something that's done after combat in most RPG games. I do not find it appealing to expose my avatar to pick up some random clip/magazine that's lying on the ground simply so I can continue using said weapon(s).

I don't like looting whatsoever. I don't care whether it's before, during or after combat. However, I don't see what this has got to do with TC. The only thing TC add to the game is making a certain resource scarce - looting is just one way to replenish said resource, but it's not the only way to accomplish this. I personally wouldn't mind a far more "realistic" approach by giving Shep a fixed amount of ammo which (s)he can use to complete the mission - like RL commando teams do. They don't rely on enemy equipment, but they do have a limited supply of ammunition which forces them to think how and when to use those resources.

With a weapon or an actual item it's a bit different. Maybe I'm using a pistol, but because I'm stuck in close quarters I want to pick up an enemy's shotgun because it's ultimately more effective. Thankfully ME3 does now actually allow you to do this and I'm grateful.

Amen to that. IMHO the ME2 (class based) weapon restriction are bad for gameplay - it's great news to hear in ME3 I can equip my Engineer with the Claymore and the Viper if I like that (which I do very much

But getting your butt shot off just because the game imposes an ammo limitation and requires you to look for ammo is not fun. Now don't get the wrong impression that I died a lot in ME2 and as a result I'm crying about TCs for that reason. What generally happened was my shields got shot up and then I was forced to wait in cover before I could resume attacking as I was waiting for the health regeneration to kick in. Which basically resulted in me spending more time hiding behind cover do nothing then I probably did in ME1 honestly.

And this is exactly why I do not find such games that fun especially on higher difficulties as basically you take a few shots kill an enemy or two and then wait for the veins bursting through your eyes to go away, rinse and repeat.

That's difficulty (not TC) you're talking about, and lots of players have already proven that ME2 can be beaten on Insanity - with all classes - without the need to rely on cover (all the time). I cannot do what some people on YT are doing with their Shep on Insanity, but I can do some crazy stuff on an easier difficulty level. That's a testimony to ME2's difficulty system: those who are skilled can play Insanity like someone less-skilled plays the game on Normal - there are very few games who can say that.

When I increase the challenge and play on Insanity, I expect to be hard-pressed which is the case in ME2. It wasn't the case in ME1 (Insanity only increased the time you spend shooting harmless enemies). But we're getting a little off-topic here. Let's stay focused on TC instead of comparing ME1 and 2 with one another.

Can you explain why an Overheat Mechanic would limit the number of available weapons?

What do TCs have to with Heavy Weapons? I'm not going to object that a rocket launcher use rockets. It's a totally different type of weapon from the conventional firearms. I have no objections that Heavy Weapons use their own form of ammunition as they are meant to be powerful limited use weapons. (Heavy Weapons do not use Thermals Clips, they use Power Cells, not much better lorewise but I don't really care in this instance.)

Those are two different things. Overheating replaces the reloading mechanic, but is not related to an unlimited ammo system. Overheating does limit design options, but far less compared to the unlimited ammo system.

The Heavy Weapons are an example of guns that cannot exist (without completely breaking balance) in a game with unlimited ammunition. Heavy Weapons are just weapons, there is nothing that makes them different compared to the more conventional weapons ... except ammo.

If you understand the concept of having the choice between using the Cain once every 5 missions or so; OR using less devastating HW (like the Avalanche, Arc Projector, Missile Launcher etc) more liberallly (a couple of shots per mission) then I don't see why you don't understand this same concept with other weapons. Ammo is one of the key features to achieve balance and to give the player different options. 

The ME2 Avalanche, flamethrower, Collector Beam and Missile Launcher (for example) cannot work with an overheating mechanism because they don't require reloading and have no limits in RoF except how much ammo you've got left. When you're talking about the more conventional weaponry I refer to Tony Gunslinger's post - he explained the problems of overheating vs reloading already.

You have pretty darn near unlimited ammo in ME2 anyways. The difference between ME1 and ME2 in this regard?

In ME1 you wait a few seconds for the weapon to cool.
In ME2 you reload or go pick up another clip.

I'm not saying unlimited ammo makes the game harder. I'm saying having to wait for a cooldown and or manage your heat build-up does.

ME1's penalty is harsher then ME2's in this regard as it actually does require you switch weapons. But it also rewards those who can control their fire-rate.

Also please for the love of _ do not bring Frictionless Material/Spectre Weapons. Those items are broken and render the Overheat Mechanic useless. I know that. I'm not asking for such things to return were an Overheat System re-implemented.

I've never claimed ME2's ammo pickup system to be any good. I'm the first to admit there's way to many ammo around. But there are still limitations. You say in ME2 you reload or pick up another clip (instead of waiting on the overheating system). You are right with the reloading part, but wrong with the picking up clips part. The latter forces the player to move around, if you want to keep using the same weapon you need to work for it. Leaving your safe cover spot to collect clips does make things more complicated and challenging. You have the choice to either move your butt, or stay put and switch to a different weapon (this is nonexistent in ME1).

Comparing ME1 combat with ME2's is a little off-topic but it can help explain the problem. In ME1 you are playing two seperate games. The first game is about abilities - you activate all abilities first. The second game is about shooting - all abilities are on cooldown and all enemies have become harmless. The only thing left to do is to shoot (for quite a while). Shooting enemies who are not dangerous in any way isn't challenging and doesn't require the skills needed in all other (proper) shooter games (like timing, aiming, positioning). In ME1 it didn't matter that you were using 16th century muskets (in terms of accuracy); it did not matter if your shots hit the target or not (it only prolongs fighting). I.E. there is nothing else to do than keeping track of your weapon's cooldown meter. The cooldown system worked in ME1 because you already won the fight before firing your weapons.

This has changed with ME2. Now enemies do fight back, enemies do move around and use cover, you cannot use all abilities first and shoot for a long time - instead you can use one ability every couple seconds and shoot in between cooldown periods. This made ME2 a far better ability-shooter hybrid, and it also makes combat far more dynamic. In ME2 good aiming is rewarded, you can target specific enemy body parts (not possible in ME1). All these things are more demanding for the player. Keeping track about what's going on around you has become critical to your success. All these things make it a lot harder to manage an overheating mechanic which doesn't add anything to the game - it only replaces the reload mechanic which is far easier to manage which allows the player to focus on the fighting without risking his/her weapons.

]
I also believe most weapons (yet) don't have an ammunition counter on clear display for the operator. I never watched my Cooldown Meter anymore then I did my Bulletcount Meter. How is it any worse to memorize the heat build-up rate of your weapon to the number of shots your weapon has? I mean FFS the inventory even told you how many Shots Before Overheat in ME1.

If you say overheating aka ruining your weapons improves gameplay then the same thing can be applied to your pc or console as a whole. Wouldn't it be "great" if you could burn your computer whenever you forgot about the overheat meter? Obviously this is rather sarcastic, but I think you'll get my point. Risking your own tools to become useless is frustrating instead of challenging. When I die because enemies have outflanked me, because I took too much risk etc etc - I am punished for making tactical mistakes, not for pressing or holding a button too long causing my weapon to overheat. In ME1 I always reloaded whenever I ruined my gun because the game becomes unplayable when you have to use weapons which your Shep cannot use and up to 75% into mission it was still faster to restart the entire mission than to complete the last 25% with a weapon that has little to no chance of hitting an enemy anyways.

Design of what? Weapons? Video Games? Where exactly is your argument of authority coming from here?

I fail to see how weapons in video games using something other then ammunition is wrong, especially in a Sci-Fi game of all things. Do lasers need X number of shots in order to be shootable? Also overheating mechanics/forms of unlimited ammunition has worked for other games. I believe it can and has worked Mass Effect. Yes ME1 had some serious flaws, but that's not reason enough to just up and abandon the whole design. Good Designers/Inventors/Engineers figure out how to make things work with what they have.

And also even though I don't like TCs I have offered some ways I believe they could be improved. So I'm not just here "hating". My concerns are legitimate.

Designing stuff = solving problems (nothing more, nothing less). If you are going to try solve a problem, the first thing you should do is looking if and how others have solved that problem and learn from their accomplishments and mistakes.

ME tries to be a shooter with added RPG elements. Bioware has been designing RPG'ish games for decades, but they have little experience with anything resembling a shooter. Looking how the other companies handle shooting mechanics is always a good thing. It's far better to copy a good design than to come up with an unique but poor design yourself.

Whether someone likes ME1's system or ME2's is irrelevant - that's personal preference. When one designs something the final product has to meet certain demands and criteria which are used to evalutate all possible options. Bioware clearly concluded that the TC system is superior to the overheat system for the game they are trying to create / design.

We are at least debating gameplay mechanics and I respect your concerns though I don't agree with most of them. Which is far better than those who claim everything used in any other shooter game is "dumb", "simple", "boring" or whatever.

My position is simple: Unlimited ammo is bad for gameplay, period; and I consider a reload/clip mechanic to be superior to an overheating mechanism.

[cindercatz]

Aside from the rest of it, it's a mistake to assume that everyone uses powers first, fires while powers are cooling, then repeats. Maybe if you're a vanguard, you do that. I dunno. My infiltrator barely used powers at all, and not until the last section of the game, other than assassinate to line up a long range shot on occasion, and very rarely at that. My adept only used powers at short range, and was still a sniper first, excepting the Citadel end mission.. because it was fun. Very fun. Slow universal cooldown is another problem with the ME2 combat.

Nobody's said anything about my hybrid system I described up above, that I've been bringing up occasionally since I first joined these boards.. lol That's the way to go. You add challenge, reward skill, and don't overly punish less skilled players by forcing them into unwanted play styles. And lore wise, it's more realistic that you take your own supplies rather than constantly scavenging clips.

Modifié par cindercatz, 22 octobre 2011 - 03:19 .

[P38 ace]

Easy compromize for all of this
keep the TC system but when you run out of TC, (which you can take from, and used on any weapon)
then it switchs back over to the OH system

when you pick up TC, you can put it in the gun contiues to cool and it swiches beck to TC system

bacicly what i am saying is a gun the has unlimted ammo(based on the tech) even if you run out of TC, should still be fire.

[Sgt Stryker]

cindercatz wrote...

Aside from the rest of it, it's a mistake to assume that everyone uses powers first, fires while powers are cooling, then repeats. Maybe if you're a vanguard, you do that. I dunno. My infiltrator barely used powers at all, and not until the last section of the game, other than assassinate to line up a long range shot on occasion, and very rarely at that. My adept only used powers at short range, and was still a sniper first, excepting the Citadel end mission.. because it was fun. Very fun. Slow universal cooldown is another problem with the ME2 combat.

Nobody's said anything about my hybrid system I described up above, that I've been bringing up occasionally since I first joined these boards.. lol That's the way to go. You add challenge, reward skill, and don't overly punish less skilled players by forcing them into unwanted play styles. And lore wise, it's more realistic that you take your own supplies rather than constantly scavenging clips.

Actually I believe an early build of ME2 used a hybrid system similar to what you're describing, but for some bizarre reason they went with conventional shooter ammo. The official reason was that the testers didn't like it, but I don't know if we'll ever know the truth. In my opinion, they chose the current system to avoid confusing players. <_<

I also believe that this change was made pretty late in development, probably during the testing stage. Hence the lore hiccups on Jacob's mission. 

As for your other point: Yes, I think it's ridiculous that Shepard and co. need to rely on salvaging battlefield detritus in order to be combat-effective. What if they end up fighting an enemy that simply has not yet upgraded to the thermal clip system? I can think of plenty of factions that would not or could not do so: the mechs on Aeia, the mechs on Freedom's Progress, colonists who were converted into husks, wild animals, krogan on Tuchanka who are barely surviving and don't have the resources to buy the latest and greatest tech, the list goes on and on.

At this point the only way to make any sense of this is with a healthy dose of gameplay/story segregation (read: more mental gymnastics )

[Shepard the Leper]

cindercatz wrote...

Aside from the rest of it, it's a mistake to assume that everyone uses powers first, fires while powers are cooling, then repeats. Maybe if you're a vanguard, you do that. I dunno. My infiltrator barely used powers at all, and not until the last section of the game, other than assassinate to line up a long range shot on occasion, and very rarely at that. My adept only used powers at short range, and was still a sniper first, excepting the Citadel end mission.. because it was fun. Very fun. Slow universal cooldown is another problem with the ME2 combat.

Soldiers and Infiltrators activate Immunity and become invincible; tech specialist use tech mines to disable all enemy weapons and/or powers; biotics send everyone flying. At that point the combat no longer is combat since combat implies both sides have an (equal) chance to kill the other. Obviously one can chose not to use those abilities but that basically equals deliberately gimping oneself.

You can easily remove all ME1 weapons without changing gameplay. Activating Immunity and then beat the lot to pulp with ones bare hands, a baseball bet, a sword, axe or whatever doesn't change the fact that you're fighting an enemy that cannot defend itself. ME1's "combat" isn't demanding, it doesn't require the player's full attention all the time. For the most part it's completely irrelevant what you're doing since the enemy cannot hurt you at all. Such parameters make it far easier to focus on other things like the overheat meter when firing your guns. This is not possible in ME2 without loosing track of what's going on around you. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion.

Nobody's said anything about my hybrid system I described up above, that I've been bringing up occasionally since I first joined these boards.. lol That's the way to go. You add challenge, reward skill, and don't overly punish less skilled players by forcing them into unwanted play styles. And lore wise, it's more realistic that you take your own supplies rather than constantly scavenging clips.

Ones playstyle is more or less irrelevant. It's up to the devs to provide the player with a good selection of options and it's up to the player to make the most out of the available options. Restrictions are necessary for any gameplay system, the key is to make them significant enough to punish players who are not using their entire arsenal (optimally), but without forcing the player into one specific playstyle. Adding infinite ammo removes, or at least severely reduces, choices and consequences which is always bad for gameplay.

The ME2 Infiltrator - for example - can be played as a designated sniper, but the ammo limitations require proper aiming because there isn't enough ammo around to waste half your shots. This encourages and rewards the player to take his/her time to take each shot to make them count which consequently results in a more satisfying experience (when every shot is important you will be pleased when shots hit, and you will curse yourself whenever you miss one - with unlimited ammo this is a non-issue and nobody would care when they miss a couple shots because it has no consequences).

Less skilled players should play on the appropriate difficulty setting; they are supposed to be punished for playing on a level that is beyond their skills. They can practice to get better at the game so they can increase the challenge whenever things are becoming too easy on the current difficulty level. Giving the player unlimited ammo to compensate their poor aiming / shooting skills is exactly like giving players unlimited health to compensate their lack of skill to keep Shep alive. Both are (equally) bad for gameplay.

Fortunately, weapon modding makes a return in ME3. BW can easily use this system to give players the option to increase the amount of ammo they can carry per weapon, but by doing so, the player would lose the option to boost damage, or increase RoF, reduce recoil etc. Then there is choice and each choice will have consequences.

Choice without consequences isn't a choice after all.

[The Spamming Troll]

Tony Gunslinger wrote...

Bluko wrote...

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
- Yes, you should be challenged by enemies, and enemies do flank you in ME2, and they flank you all the time. I don't know where you get the exaggerated idea that you win every fight by staying in one place.

Oh really?

The A.I. in almost all the levels is heavily scripted to follow certain paths and take cover at certain objects. A few enemies will try to advance/flank (you can't flank someone in a corridor though...) and after you kill those most of the rest will simply shoot you from their prescribed camping spot.

You’re talking to spawn points, not scripted behavior. Yes, they initially spawn at fixed locations, but afterwards the enemies react to whatever you do and where you are.

not true at all. theres so many instances in ME2 where i see enemies walking the exact same paths. most of the time its easy to know exactly which waste high wall they are going to walk to, becasue the last enemies i killed there did the same patterns. also all of their in-cover-AI is exactly the same too. a turian sniper is no different then an eclipse vangaurd. even calling that enemy an "eclipse vangaurd" is a disjustice to all vangaurds. its a warp bot with a shotgun, thats not a vangaurd. tela vasir is a vangaurd.
 
i dont care to argue about all the terrible parts of ME2, but ME3 is said to be offering more variety in enemies. so hopefully the im not rinsing and repeating so much in ME3.

Tony Gunslinger wrote...
Yes, this is exactly what I’m saying -- for all the reasons I've stated not only in this thread but also the 500 other similar threads out there that you and a few others conveniently choose to ignore and have failed to respond --

your wrong. what else is there to say about it?

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 22 octobre 2011 - 07:07 .

[The Spamming Troll]

Shepard the Leper wrote...
I've never claimed ME2's ammo pickup system to be any good. I'm the first to admit there's way to many ammo around. But there are still limitations. You say in ME2 you reload or pick up another clip (instead of waiting on the overheating system). You are right with the reloading part, but wrong with the picking up clips part. The latter forces the player to move around, if you want to keep using the same weapon you need to work for it. Leaving your safe cover spot to collect clips does make things more complicated and challenging. You have the choice to either move your butt, or stay put and switch to a different weapon (this is nonexistent in ME1).

This made ME2 a far better ability-shooter hybrid, and it also makes combat far more dynamic. In ME2 good aiming is rewarded, you can target specific enemy body parts (not possible in ME1). All these things are more demanding for the player. Keeping track about what's going on around you has become critical to your success. All these things make it a lot harder to manage an overheating mechanic which doesn't add anything to the game - it only replaces the reload mechanic which is far easier to manage which allows the player to focus on the fighting without risking his/her weapons.

you want to rely on an abstract ammo count to be forced out of your sweet sniping spot? you wouldnt want gameplay that forces you out of cover because its challenging enough to push you out of cover? you switch weapons in ME2 ONLY when you run out of clips. theres no tactical advantage to not using your "best" weapon, unless your doing things like charging with a sniper rifle. you can switch weapons in ME1 whenever you wanted, unless you were overheated. and lets not over exagerate the 6 seconds you had to wait for the gun to work again as heart breakingly long, nor is it difficult to manage, nor is either ammo system more effective at headshots. and how can you complain about the gun overheating, it was designed to overheat so you couldnt fire forever, which is the exact reason why everyone ****s about ME1 weapons in the first place! you dont want to fire forever, but also never want to overheat???

they didnt design the game to be hard becasue of the enemeis youll face. they designed it to be hard be finding out how many sniper rifle bullets are "enough(the answer is 12)" and by adding enemy protectiosn so we cant utilize half of our characters potential.

ME2 is easy, and when its hard, its hardly mass effect. (get it!)

Modifié par The Spamming Troll, 22 octobre 2011 - 07:20 .

[cindercatz]

@Sgt Stryker: That's a shame. And totally agreed to the second part.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

cindercatz wrote...

Aside from the rest of it, it's a mistake to assume that everyone uses powers first, fires while powers are cooling, then repeats. Maybe if you're a vanguard, you do that. I dunno. My infiltrator barely used powers at all, and not until the last section of the game, other than assassinate to line up a long range shot on occasion, and very rarely at that. My adept only used powers at short range, and was still a sniper first, excepting the Citadel end mission.. because it was fun. Very fun. Slow universal cooldown is another problem with the ME2 combat.

Soldiers and Infiltrators activate Immunity and become invincible; tech specialist use tech mines to disable all enemy weapons and/or powers; biotics send everyone flying. At that point the combat no longer is combat since combat implies both sides have an (equal) chance to kill the other. Obviously one can chose not to use those abilities but that basically equals deliberately gimping oneself.

Not so much. Infiltrators only got cloaking in ME2. There's, to begin with, something like a nine second cooldown on the power (haven't played for a while now, since I finished the last dlc), so I personally save it for when I'm being severely bum rushed and need to create some space. Also, not using my powers so much only served to speed up my game, not handicap it. Why go through all those motions when I can one or two shot kill (ME1) or two or three shot kill (ME2) ? And in ME1, singularity had a full minute cooldown, so I didn't waste it at the start of a fight, when I can just snipe away until the enemy closes the gap. Again, I could kill something much faster at range just sniping, rather than using powers. Powers were a versatile, fun fallback option. I can tell you ME1 was far more challenging than ME2, all due to the overheat mechanic and the less linear level design. In ME2, adept wasn't really much fun anymore, what with having to squad combo or wait until the enemy's shields and armor were gone, when I only need a single shot to kill. I basically just use shockwave to knock enemies out of cover, 90% of the time. I did enjoy the addition of SMGs.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

You can easily remove all ME1 weapons without changing gameplay. Activating Immunity and then beat the lot to pulp with ones bare hands, a baseball bet, a sword, axe or whatever doesn't change the fact that you're fighting an enemy that cannot defend itself. ME1's "combat" isn't demanding, it doesn't require the player's full attention all the time. For the most part it's completely irrelevant what you're doing since the enemy cannot hurt you at all. Such parameters make it far easier to focus on other things like the overheat meter when firing your guns. This is not possible in ME2 without loosing track of what's going on around you. That's a pretty big difference in my opinion.

Yeah, that does not describe my experience at all. I knew how many shots I had on the overheat meter, and I knew I needed to be efficient to keep from overheating, or to manage it, since my infiltrator's sniper was a one shot, overheat, one shot weapon, as I had it modded. I knew I needed to kill anything and everything in a few shots or less, or I'd lose the upper hand as the enemy moved to flank me, or go around and attack me from behind. I knew I needed to place my squaddies in the best defensive position to keep me alive. ME2, I'm still efficient, but there's really nothing to concern myself with. I reload after nearly ever salvo, rather than waiting for my clip to widdle down, anyway. The clips are way more than enough to keep me stocked. I never lost track of what was going on around me in either game. ME2 was more linear, and therefore easier to follow and predict, than ME1. In ME2, I place my squaddies to keep them alive, not me. The only thing that gave me any trouble was the level where you meet up with the VS, only because there were so many husks running around while you're trying to kill the floating death ray.

cindercatz wrote...

Nobody's said anything about my hybrid system I described up above, that I've been bringing up occasionally since I first joined these boards.. lol That's the way to go. You add challenge, reward skill, and don't overly punish less skilled players by forcing them into unwanted play styles. And lore wise, it's more realistic that you take your own supplies rather than constantly scavenging clips.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Ones playstyle is more or less irrelevant. It's up to the devs to provide the player with a good selection of options and it's up to the player to make the most out of the available options. Restrictions are necessary for any gameplay system, the key is to make them significant enough to punish players who are not using their entire arsenal (optimally), but without forcing the player into one specific playstyle. Adding infinite ammo removes, or at least severely reduces, choices and consequences which is always bad for gameplay.

Developing your own playstyle is what makes Mass Effect an RPG series, rather than simply a which-way shooter, so it should be encouraged altogether. I don't think anybody should be punished for not using their arsenal. I don't like shotguns, personally. I don't want to be forced into using them, for instance. I like to snipe and defend position, use chokepoints and range. Why shouldn't I be able to do that? Infinite ammo does nothing, because you've effectively got it anyway, if you know how to play, and having infinite ammo says nothing about how the combat system works. My system, with limited clips and forced cooldown periods or weapon swapping after their expense, is far more challenging, with far greater gameplay consequence. The added restrictions didn't really do anything but discourage power use, in favor of more efficient gunplay options.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

The ME2 Infiltrator - for example - can be played as a designated sniper, but the ammo limitations require proper aiming because there isn't enough ammo around to waste half your shots. This encourages and rewards the player to take his/her time to take each shot to make them count which consequently results in a more satisfying experience (when every shot is important you will be pleased when shots hit, and you will curse yourself whenever you miss one - with unlimited ammo this is a non-issue and nobody would care when they miss a couple shots because it has no consequences).

Like I described earlier, each shot is far more important when there's a cooldown heat system, and the game becomes far more challenging. The consequence of missing a shot in a heat system is that you're immediately put on the defensive as the enemy moves on your position, as happened in ME1. There's nowhere near that kind of pressure in ME2, even with limited ammo. I already know where the enemy is, and I already know what they're going to do, and I can pop their head or their shoulder or leg while they're stuck in cover. Very easy stuff. I do like being able to fire, load, fire, load, very quickly, as I've stated. I enjoy the rhythm.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Less skilled players should play on the appropriate difficulty setting; they are supposed to be punished for playing on a level that is beyond their skills. They can practice to get better at the game so they can increase the challenge whenever things are becoming too easy on the current difficulty level. Giving the player unlimited ammo to compensate their poor aiming / shooting skills is exactly like giving players unlimited health to compensate their lack of skill to keep Shep alive. Both are (equally) bad for gameplay.

Nobody should be forced to totally abandon their preferred play style, even if they haven't developed the skills to fully realize its potential. Still, a true hybrid system, with truly limited quick loading clips, would encourage growth in their skill by emphasizing efficiency. The unlimited ammo isn't to compensate for anything. It's there to allow continued use of a weapon at all, with, again, an emphasis on efficiency. If you're ineffient, the game then becomes more challenging, because you'll have to further measure your shots, since you won't be able to quickly reload a clip when you need it.

ME1 didn't have unlimited health, and ME2 only has recharging health. If you play well, your health isn't an issue anyway, since the vast majority of all the damage you take should be coming solely out of your shields.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Fortunately, weapon modding makes a return in ME3. BW can easily use this system to give players the option to increase the amount of ammo they can carry per weapon, but by doing so, the player would lose the option to boost damage, or increase RoF, reduce recoil etc. Then there is choice and each choice will have consequences.

Choice without consequences isn't a choice after all.

Agreed on both these points. I'm thrilled weapon modding is back, and choice should have consequence in these games.

[The Spamming Troll]

Preston Watamaniuk wrote...

Any class can carry any weapon. The mods available to each weapon type are where they really become differentiated. The SMG is really important now for classes that rely heavily on power gameplay or where heat sink capacity becomes a problem. In fact two mods are available now for SMGs that increase their ability to fire longer and run out of heat sinks less. Every class can carry 5 weapons, BUT there is a really big penalty to doing so if you are playing anything but a Soldier. Generally in my Adept runs I like to take a Tempest and a Carnifex. I leave the bigger guns to Garrus, James and Ashley. In fact I have done entire Adept runs with just a Predator. The balance around the number, type and specific weapons you take is really feeling nice and adding a lot of interesting choice to weapon selection. More to come later. Jarrett had me do an entire BioWare TV episode just on RPG mechanics, which is coming out soon.

not entirely related to TCs, but i just came across this. it gives a good idea of the balance between weapons and powers they are trying to make with ME3.

i wonder if that adept+predetor was on the higher difficulty settings.

[Shepard the Leper]

cindercatz wrote...

Developing your own playstyle is what makes Mass Effect an RPG series, rather than simply a which-way shooter, so it should be encouraged altogether. I don't think anybody should be punished for not using their arsenal. I don't like shotguns, personally. I don't want to be forced into using them, for instance. I like to snipe and defend position, use chokepoints and range. Why shouldn't I be able to do that? Infinite ammo does nothing, because you've effectively got it anyway, if you know how to play, and having infinite ammo says nothing about how the combat system works. My system, with limited clips and forced cooldown periods or weapon swapping after their expense, is far more challenging, with far greater gameplay consequence. The added restrictions didn't really do anything but discourage power use, in favor of more efficient gunplay options.

Developing a playstyle has nothing to do with RPGs nor ME. Every game provides different gameplay options and mechanics - RPGs tend to offer more though. This however doesn't mean the player should be able to do as they please.

I've already explained why unlimited ammo is devastating for weapon balance and variety. Every shooter I've ever played has a wide selection of guns - some are very powerful but they can only be used briefly; some are less powerful but ammo comes in large supplies. It's up to the player to decide when, how and against whom to use the most badass gear. The option to use the most brutal guns all day long doesn't only break weapon balance, it also greatly reduces their appeal since they stop being special. A differentiated weapon selection is only possible with an ammo system. That's why all shooters use an ammo system - to offer choices with consequences beyond the simple I love weapon X so I expect to be able to use it 24/7.

Nobody should be forced to totally abandon their preferred play style, even if they haven't developed the skills to fully realize its potential. Still, a true hybrid system, with truly limited quick loading clips, would encourage growth in their skill by emphasizing efficiency. The unlimited ammo isn't to compensate for anything. It's there to allow continued use of a weapon at all, with, again, an emphasis on efficiency. If you're ineffient, the game then becomes more challenging, because you'll have to further measure your shots, since you won't be able to quickly reload a clip when you need it.

The problem with your argument is that it's based on the same principle as giving the player unlimited money. That allows the player to buy everything instantly which offers greater freedom to play in any preferred way possible. Something that adds options doesn't equal good gameplay design. Godmode can be fun, but it ain't challenging in any way.

ME1 didn't have unlimited health, and ME2 only has recharging health. If you play well, your health isn't an issue anyway, since the vast majority of all the damage you take should be coming solely out of your shields.

I suggest to take a look at these ME1 videos: Soldier & Adept and explain when there's something going on that slightly resembles actual combat. The Soldier cannot die and the Adept cannot be touched - it's mindless shooting enemies with massive HP. Unlimited ammo was necessary in ME1 so you wouldn't run out after killing the first couple enemies on Insanity.

Agreed on both these points. I'm thrilled weapon modding is back, and choice should have consequence in these games.

I think our disagreements are about the consequences of our choices

Modifié par Shepard the Leper, 22 octobre 2011 - 10:47 .

[ReshyShira]

Shepard the Leper wrote...

Developing a playstyle has nothing to do with RPGs nor ME. Every game provides different gameplay options and mechanics - RPGs tend to offer more though. This however doesn't mean the player should be able to do as they please.

I've already explained why unlimited ammo is devastating for weapon balance and variety. Every shooter I've ever played has a wide selection of guns - some are very powerful but they can only be used briefly; some are less powerful but ammo comes in large supplies. It's up to the player to decide when, how and against whom to use the most badass gear. The option to use the most brutal guns all day long doesn't only break weapon balance, it also greatly reduces their appeal since they stop being special. A differentiated weapon selection is only possible with an ammo system. That's why all shooters use an ammo system - to offer choices with consequences beyond the simple I love weapon X so I expect to be able to use it 24/7.


The problem with your argument is that it's based on the same principle as giving the player unlimited money. That allows the player to buy everything instantly which offers greater freedom to play in any preferred way possible. Something that adds options doesn't equal good gameplay design. Godmode can be fun, but it ain't challenging in any way.


I suggest to take a look at these ME1 videos: Soldier & Adept and explain when there's something going on that slightly resembles actual combat. The Soldier cannot die and the Adept cannot be touched - it's mindless shooting enemies with massive HP. Unlimited ammo was necessary in ME1 so you wouldn't run out after killing the first couple enemies on Insanity.

Having a cool down system on your pistol and guns is not the same as having a cooldown system on the rocket launcher or the cain.  It does not have to be an all or nothing package you know.  They could go the route of having the 'Standard Issue' weapons such as the pistol, assult rifle, sniper, etc. having cooldown but special weapons such as a rocket launcher having an ammo system.  If the issues are balance they can be fixed with diligent and thoughtful design.


The problem with unlimited money is that if there's something clearly 'Better' then it will be used at the expense of all else.  This makes having upgraded versions of older equipment moot in this case.  It also allows for an easy system for sidequest rewards, those being of course if you do enough you can strap on a shiny new barrel onto your rifle.  Unlimited money also causes pacing issues, as it means that from the get-go you must be throwing all variations of enemies out or there will always be an instance where a gun is always 'better'.


Challenge is not a reason to import bad game mechanics in the game, please don't use this arguement.  A bad camera that makes it hard to see what's going on makes a game difficult, doesn't make it better however.


Issues with enemies having too much HP on the highest difficulty is an instance of lazy design.  Making more difficulty by just giving everything a boost to stats but not smarter AI or new attacks is frankly lazy and should not be used as a counter point.  A good thing to note in ME2 is that if you DO happen to run out of ammo for any reason, you're done.  There's no backup pistol with infinite ammo that you can use in a pinch, you're just flat out done unless you are good at abusing abilities.

[fdgvdddvdfdfbdfb]

Yeah grenades weren't even unlimited in the first game. (funnily enough they were in Kasumi) Lore wise a cool down rpg doesn't even make sense anyway since you're not firing shavings at people.

James_Raynor wrote... A good thing to note in ME2 is that if you DO happen to run out of ammo for any reason, you're done. There's no backup pistol with infinite ammo that you can use in a pinch, you're just flat out done unless you are good at abusing abilities.

Try telling that to the morons banging on about the advancement of technology. It's a god damn retcon people, and a very poorly conceived one. Accept it.

[Shepard the Leper]

James_Raynor wrote...

Having a cool down system on your pistol and guns is not the same as having a cooldown system on the rocket launcher or the cain.  It does not have to be an all or nothing package you know.  They could go the route of having the 'Standard Issue' weapons such as the pistol, assult rifle, sniper, etc. having cooldown but special weapons such as a rocket launcher having an ammo system.  If the issues are balance they can be fixed with diligent and thoughtful design.

The Rocket Launcher is less powerful than the Widow (and Mantis) sniper rifles. Great! Let's give the lesser weapon a limited ammo system and the greater one unlimited shots - that will be awesome for balance and makes it a hard decision to choice between a one-shot-kill weapon that can be used indefinitely and a multiple-shot per kill weapon that can only be used a few times ...

Ammo limitations is one of the most effective ways to ensure balance; unlimited ammo is one of the best ways to ruin the system completely. I seriously don't see what you don't understand about this. A three year old child can tell the difference.

The problem with unlimited money is that if there's something clearly 'Better' then it will be used at the expense of all else.  This makes having upgraded versions of older equipment moot in this case.  It also allows for an easy system for sidequest rewards, those being of course if you do enough you can strap on a shiny new barrel onto your rifle.  Unlimited money also causes pacing issues, as it means that from the get-go you must be throwing all variations of enemies out or there will always be an instance where a gun is always 'better'.

Can you explain the difference between having unlimited health, money, resources, skillpoints, ... , and/or ammo? I can't - in my book that's called cheating one way or the other and cheating breaks gameplay (balance).

Upgrading weapons is moot (modding isn't). Deciding which weapon you're going to use out of an equally effective selection (but with different pros and cons) is great. That's about tactics instead of trier 7 is better than trier 5 weapons (like ME1). That's for fools.

Challenge is not a reason to import bad game mechanics in the game, please don't use this arguement.  A bad camera that makes it hard to see what's going on makes a game difficult, doesn't make it better however.

You are comparing something that ruins gameplay with something that forces the player to make decisions.

Issues with enemies having too much HP on the highest difficulty is an instance of lazy design.  Making more difficulty by just giving everything a boost to stats but not smarter AI or new attacks is frankly lazy and should not be used as a counter point.  A good thing to note in ME2 is that if you DO happen to run out of ammo for any reason, you're done.  There's no backup pistol with infinite ammo that you can use in a pinch, you're just flat out done unless you are good at abusing abilities.

It's very naive to expect the devs to gimp their AI system on the base difficulty setting. That will never happen. ME2 uses a rather interesting mechanic to increase difficulty without insane health bars (like most other games do, including ME1). Anyone who runs out of ammo playing ME2 should go see a doctor, seriously. You might run out of sniper ammo, or heavy weapon ammo occasionally. But wasting the other 500 SMG rounds and not hitting anything is quite an accomplishment.

[cindercatz]

@James_Raynor: Well said.

Shepard the Leper wrote...

The Rocket Launcher is less powerful than the Widow (and Mantis) sniper rifles. Great! Let's give the lesser weapon a limited ammo system and the greater one unlimited shots - that will be awesome for balance and makes it a hard decision to choice between a one-shot-kill weapon that can be used indefinitely and a multiple-shot per kill weapon that can only be used a few times ...

Ammo limitations is one of the most effective ways to ensure balance; unlimited ammo is one of the best ways to ruin the system completely. I seriously don't see what you don't understand about this. A three year old child can tell the difference.

Can you explain the difference between having unlimited health, money, resources, skillpoints, ... , and/or ammo? I can't - in my book that's called cheating one way or the other and cheating breaks gameplay (balance).

Upgrading weapons is moot (modding isn't). Deciding which weapon you're going to use out of an equally effective selection (but with different pros and cons) is great. That's about tactics instead of trier 7 is better than trier 5 weapons (like ME1). That's for fools.

You are comparing something that ruins gameplay with something that forces the player to make decisions.

It's very naive to expect the devs to gimp their AI system on the base difficulty setting. That will never happen. ME2 uses a rather interesting mechanic to increase difficulty without insane health bars (like most other games do, including ME1). Anyone who runs out of ammo playing ME2 should go see a doctor, seriously. You might run out of sniper ammo, or heavy weapon ammo occasionally. But wasting the other 500 SMG rounds and not hitting anything is quite an accomplishment.

The rocket launcher is not less powerful than a sniper rifle, any sniper rifle, because the rocket launcher is a splash damage weapon designed for crowd control, rather than a single shot rifle, the most powerful of which still require a headshot to get a one shot kill on most minor enemies. It's apples and oranges. Also, the rocket launcher is your starter heavy weapon. It's a mechanics instructor, so you compare it to the starting armory, not the most powerful, effective guns. Yes, heavy weapons should have limited ammo, as they're designed to be used sparingly. Personally, I just plain don't use them. I try them out and pretty well forget they're there. They're basically gimmicks solely to add a little 'ooh, ahh' factor. Eye candy.

Limited ammo is useless unless everybody actually has to work not to run out of ammo.. which is what a limited starting clip and cooldown heat system would do, also allowing for continued use of weapons at increased difficulty. Limited ammo like we've got in ME2 is useless, and only serves to add random circle running after every firefight.

Ammo, as it exists in ME2, has nothing to do with balance. It does in terms of 'weapon x gets x shots before reloading', but that's it. That mechanic would still exist. What balances the weapon system is the tradeoff of power, rate of fire, and range. The one shot rifles have the slowest reload, least shots to a clip, and are generally useless at very short range, which is why all snipers in the ME series have sidearms (other than Zaeed, who has the jack of all trades assault rifle). All of that is still true with the kind of system I'm talking about. A three year old child wouldn't be so enamored with his old, well worn toys that he or she couldn't see the forest for the trees.

How is creating the strongest possible gameplay system cheating? It's innovative, yes, cheating? Hardly. And it has zero to do with unlimited health, money, resources, or skill points. In this case, it enhances gameplay, increasing challenge, promoting efficiency, and allowing for free specialization, where all the rest of those things are basically godmode, which is not at all what I'm supporting here.

The weapons are not equally efficient, hardly. Your starting guns don't kill as quickly, and are therefore less effective in battle. Having a greater number of shots per clip doesn't equal damage per shot or rate of fire. There is a clear progression as you improve your selection of available weapons in ME2. I agree the gun selection and weapon system is better than ME1 in that way. I'm glad it's coming back, with mods, in ME3.

He's comparing something that hurts gameplay, increasing frustration, with something that hurts gameplay, increasing tedium.

Exactly. Nobody runs out of ammo in ME2, which makes overall limited ammo a moot point, an excess that does nothing but add tedium. Note, I'm not talking about the heavy weapons. I have no idea why you want to conflate basic gameplay with eye candy one offs.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Crawlingkingsnake wrote...

I'm sure this has been touched on before, but, why did they add Thermal Clips to ME2 and ME3?

To impose a generic ammo system on a setting that used to have something far more original and interesting. 

[Someone With Mass]

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

To impose a generic ammo system on a setting that used to have something far more original and interesting. 

Ha, the overheat system was hardly original.

[Killjoy Cutter]

Someone With Mass wrote...

Killjoy Cutter wrote...

To impose a generic ammo system on a setting that used to have something far more original and interesting. 

Ha, the overheat system was hardly original.

If not, fine.  It was the first time I'd seen it in any sort fo TPS game, but then, I buy maybe 6 new games a year, and the ME series is as close as I come to playing shooters other than a quick "oh man what have I exposed myself to" experience with games like Unreal Tournament and Call of Duty.

Modifié par Killjoy Cutter, 23 octobre 2011 - 03:57 .

[Sebbe1337o]

One thing I would like to see in ME3 would be a combo between the system in ME2 and ME1 - If you're out if thermal clips, the weapon will cool down eventually, but slow. Sadly, Bioware has already confirmed that this will not be the case

[essarr71]

Personally didn't mind the shift.

There is just something a bit more exciting about being in a drawn out fire fight and HAVING to pull out my pistol because my other weapons are empty. Adds a bit more drama and wish clips were a little less frequent for it.

[tomana7]

wow, there's a LOT of words in this thread ... here's a few more :

By the time man was finally zipping through space using hyper drive or whatever, why would hand held weapons need to be refueled (thermal clips). I think Mass Effect had it right - a cooldown period if using rapid fire, etc but no need to go hunting the ground for thermal clips.

I hope this will change in ME3

Modifié par tomana7, 23 octobre 2011 - 10:00 .