214 réponses à ce sujet

[kregano]

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

To comment briefly on the whole 'homing rockets' issue, to me, it made the Hammerhead incredibly boring. It's quite simple
1. Find enemy
2. Hide in cover
3. Jump out of cover and spam rockets
4. Repeat until finished

No tactics, no thinking. For all of its flaws, at least you had to seriously consider what you were doing in the Mako.

That's pretty much what you do in the Mako, unless you're under attack by a Tresher Maw. Just replace rockets with cannon.

[CARL_DF90]

Me? Hated the Mako. I'll take the Hammerhead instead.

[PMC65]

Prefer the Mako myself.

[sael_feman]

Both if we forum dwellers had our prayers listened to.

But if it comes down to it, the Mako.

Nothing beats some offroading and cannon fire.

S'F'

[wizardryforever]

crimzontearz wrote...

you are ****ing me right? Are you for real??


first off, the homing system of ALL other attacks including biotics works fine so it's an issue with the hammerhead, if you chalk it up to being inconsequential because it's an engine problemn (which is not) then the same can be said about the Mako's controls which could be reworked in future games....but that's not here nor there, the truth is that the aiming reticule does not work as intended. Why would anyone  pick rockets over an hypersonic slug? gee I dunno, because I nearly NEVER missed a shot in ME1 unless I was ****ing around for funzies? Just because some people cannot aim/would rather let the game aim (in a VERY faulty way) for them that does not mean that a kinetic slug is not 100 times more efficient. No rocket is EVER going to travel at hypersonic speeds, also, such a slow rocket can be shot down theoretically....try doing that with a mass accelerated slug. if you explain to people OUTSIDE the fandom WHY Mass Accelerated slugs work better and reflect it in the game I doubt people would pick rockets

I did not miss what you said about a secondary weapon, I just rebutted to the fact you seem to think it is a non issue, the secondary gun on the mako litertally mowed down incoming ground troop and could be spammed while still using the main cannon

I do not care if you think that omni directionality gives you the ultimate freedom of movement, no one is disputing that....yet as you can see from the myriad of posts in this thread a lot of people would rather have a tank than a filmsy hovercraft. The fact that the damn thing has NO barriers is pretty much a slap in the face of the lore...there is no reason why ANY combat ready vehicles should lack barriers especially going up agaisnt a goddamn armature class units. 

I could do without the four asterisks, if you please.

Anyway, the reason why the homing function is amazing (and it works far more often than you give it credit for), is because it does not require manual input.  It is not dependant on driver skill, making it a "fire and forget" weapon.  Does the game ever say exactly how fast the missiles travel?  Just because we can see them in game means nothing really, since we can also see our on-foot weapons' ammunition as it fires (ie, every shot is a tracer).  And you cannot tell me that you never missed in the Mako, especially if you were firing to or from an incline (of which there were many).  The thing had almost no y-axis, meaning you had to be on almost perfectly flat ground in order to be sure that your shots would go where you sent them.

There is a threshold where the speed of a weapon is ultimately irrelevant.  This is the threshold of a defensive system being able to target and eliminate the projectile.  After you cross this threshold, it does not matter which weapon is faster.  Then it comes down to other factors, like accuracy, power, and ease of use.  This is why people outside the fandom might pick something that is already incredibly fast (and accurate, and powerful, and easy to use) over something even faster (and just as powerful).

Vehicles in many ways function like RPG characters.  You've got your slow, cumbersome armored character ("tank"), and you've got your fast, agile, less armored character ("lancer").  That all comes down to personal preference of course.  But I think that a lot of the hatred for the Hammerhead comes from people trying it once or twice, hating it, and then moving on.  By contrast, the Mako was forced on you, so you couldn't just give up on it, you had to iron out the kinks in your technique.  For this reason, people have gotten used to the Mako, even if they hated it originally.

And just so you know, it is possible (but difficult) to do the Hammerhead missions without resorting to cheesiness even on Insanity, as evidenced here: www.youtube.com/watch

[crimzontearz]

dude......

no object with Mass can reach relativistic speeds without issues....thus a rocket cannot reach the speed of a kinetic slug because it does not have a mass effect core to use.....

now your argument becomes faulty because in this specific case speed is of the essence for impact force because Kinetic heavy weapons rely on that to create their impact force instead of explosives, hence why a 10KG ferros slug can impact with the yeald of a nuclear bomb once accelerated to relativistic speeds

Also, the Mako's main gun was slower but it had a much higher force, larger splash damage and longer range. Sure you can tell me it is "easier" to shoot with the hammerhead but, de facto, it is only easier because we are given an auto targeting system that, according to the Codex, should already be on the mjako through the targeting VIs it had on board.

Also..since the gun of the hammerhead only moves on one axis (yes, only on the Y axis) its aim still depends on the driver's ability to aim correctly at the target while dodging incoming fire AND while keeping that target painted because if you highlight another enemy while dodging and weaving then you are not going to hit your intended target

I dislike the Hammewrhead intensely and since Firewalker came out I completed some 6 full playthroughs or more. I also completed some 5 playthroughs of Crysis 2, I still think their vehicle controls are counter intuitiv. It is not a matter of practice at all at least not for me


Also......no, never really missed with the Mako, Closeup shots were easy, incline shots were done through the scope vision....so I missed maybe a couple of times while I was playing seriously (not counting when I was ****ing around of course)

Modifié par crimzontearz, 16 novembre 2011 - 09:54 .

[Tasha vas Nar Rayya]

I wish I could use the Mako in Skyrim...

Jumping up vertical cliffs is time consuming!

[Bekkael]

The Mako and Hammerhead tie as far as I'm concerned. They were equally frustrating in different ways, although I got used to both after a while.

The solution is to give us a sky taxi like in LotSB and add armor and guns. Perfect.

[DiebytheSword]

Bekkael wrote...

The Mako and Hammerhead tie as far as I'm concerned. They were equally frustrating in different ways, although I got used to both after a while.

The solution is to give us a sky taxi like in LotSB and add armor and guns. Perfect.

Flying mass effect cannon?  I am so in.

[Nightwriter]

lovgreno wrote...

It just feels more badass to run on wheels for some reason.

I prefer jet powered levitation, myself.

[Captain_Obvious_au]

kregano wrote...

Captain_Obvious_au wrote...

To comment briefly on the whole 'homing rockets' issue, to me, it made the Hammerhead incredibly boring. It's quite simple
1. Find enemy
2. Hide in cover
3. Jump out of cover and spam rockets
4. Repeat until finished

No tactics, no thinking. For all of its flaws, at least you had to seriously consider what you were doing in the Mako.

That's pretty much what you do in the Mako, unless you're under attack by a Tresher Maw. Just replace rockets with cannon.

No, it isn't. The hiding part, to an extent, sure. But at various times you can sit there and take the fire whilst picking off enemies, plus you have to actually aim your gun at the target rather than just in the general direction.

[aj2070]

For the question of "as is", the Hammerhead. Ideally, the Hammerhead with the Mako's endurance. The Mako at least has/ had shields.

[CHAw]

wizardryforever wrote...

Just because we can see them in game means nothing really, since we can also see our on-foot weapons' ammunition as it fires (ie, every shot is a tracer).

I just wanted to point out that this is not completely accurate. The tracers in ME2 are not perfect indicators of where each shot is at a given moment, because the tracers are actually separate from the projectiles themselves. This can be seen when shooting a target at long range, especially with a sniper rifle. If hit, the target will take damage near instantaneously, whereas the tracer will lag behind by a fraction of a second. This tracer lag is most noticeable when using a time dilation ability such as Adrenaline Rush or the Infiltrator's passive power, especially if the target is moving and 'dodges' the tracer despite being hit.

Also, not every projectile fired has an associated tracer. Most shotguns, for example, show only 4 tracers, but developer commentary has confirmed that they actually shoot 8 projectiles with each squeeze of the trigger. Similarly, the Avenger assault rifle only displays a tracer every third shot.

[suprhomre]

 Neither is fun. Who the hell have time to explore when the galaxy is burning.

[bryon_n7]

I'd love to see a combination of the two for ME3