136 réponses à ce sujet

[Firesteel]

b09boy wrote...

Firesteel7 wrote...

Do we get some bonus other than just a cooldown, like extra ammo for your guns if you carry less? It would make sense, you can put the heatsinks you carry for the guns you would be carrying towards the fewer weapons you are carrying.

That would be utterly game-breaking.

How? If you're a soldier, shouldn't you be able to carry more ammo for two guns than five guns? If you play as a soldier, your main, and really only, source of damage is guns. I don't see how that breaks the game. I'm not talking about bigger clips, there are mods for that, but about the actual spare ammo capacity. If you always carry X number of heatsinks, wouldn't they go towards the guns you are carrying and not just sit in some magical pocket that never gets used?

[Epic777]

tonnactus wrote...

Epic777 wrote...


True, but you had the extreme cases in ME1, at the start your elite soldier couldn't hot the broadside of a elephants backside, then by the end the same soldier could snipe insects a mile away.

I never had problems with the starter weapons. Crouch and burstfire,thats all that was needed. Like someone would use an assault rifle in "real life".
And even untrained it was possible to use the assault rifle this way.

The weight system is just dumb and not needed. There was a far better system in place in first game called armor slots. "Casters" put medical exoskleletons in the two slots that were available.

My thing is ME3's weight/cooldown system is not more ridiculous than the system from the last two games. ME2 had a system where an elite soldier had to in some cases "train"  to use an Assault Rifle. ME1 had weapon skills which contributed to the sceanrio I previously mentioned. Its the I hate disco but love the BeeGees argument, you can only pick one. 

I am not sure of your argument here though. Every class could put in a mediecal exoskleteton in their suit, it wasn't just casters. Honestly it was too good not to use, was their a major downside for not using it. 

You could use untrained weapons in theory but it was very awkward. In real life where you aim you will hit.

[tonnactus]

Epic777 wrote...
 MME2 had a system where an elite soldier had to in some cases "train"  to use an Assault Rifle.

No,he didnt had to. He just improves weapon handling and get special weapon powers like carnage.
I could use geth assault rifles and the spectre ones with zero points with no "training".
The accuracy of the weapons mattered more then the weapon skill anyway.

This player not even had basic marksmanship:


The only dumb thing in the first game was the amount of damage reduction immunity make possible.

Modifié par tonnactus, 08 février 2012 - 08:34 .

[Epic777]

tonnactus wrote...

Epic777 wrote...
 MME2 had a system where an elite soldier had to in some cases "train"  to use an Assault Rifle.

No,he didnt had to. He just improves weapon handling and get special weapon powers like carnage.
I could use geth assault rifles and the spectre ones with zero points with no "training".
The accuracy of the weapons mattered more then the weapon skill anyway.

This player not even had basic marksmanship:


The only dumb thing in the first game was the amount of damage reduction immunity make possible.

You did know I meant ME2 right? (Type on my part)

[tonnactus]

Epic777 wrote...

 MME2 had a system where an elite soldier had to in some cases "train"  to use an Assault Rifle.
[
You did know I meant ME2 right? (Type on my part)

Alright,thought that this typing error. The player not really train but just pick up a weapon on the collector ship and then magically could use it then. The level of idioty is comparable of course.

[Ruud333]

tonnactus wrote...

Were wasnt a long range in Mass Effect 2 and from what i saw from Mass Effect 3,there still isnt one.
People could even "snipe" with pistols and assault rifles as good as with snipers.

Yes, some of the pistols and ARs were accurate enough that you could use them at long range, but the sniper rifles make it easier and deal more damage in a single shot.

tonnactus wrote...

The biggest adavantages and reasons to play as a soldier is the damage output and durability. And access to all ammo "powers". Not the amount of weapons.I would bet most soldier player didnt used more then 2 weapons anyway.

If you see those as the biggest advantages that's fine.  I'm not going to dispute that those are good reasons, but in my opinion the access to all the weapons was also a big 'selling point' of the soldier class.

And you can 'bet' as much as you want, that doesn't provide statistics to back up your argument (and I have no statistics to contradicrt it).  I'm not saying that there are not other players that only ever used a couple of weapons when playing as a Soldier, but it seems to me that in each game BW has designed the Soldier class so that one of the benefits is access to all the weapons.  Whether people choose to play using the full range of weapons is going to be down to personal preference and playstyle.

[Meshaber]

Preston Watamaniuk wrote...

You have to carry at least 1 gun. The reason is technical not gameplay related. Without a gun all of our combat animations would break, and creating a whole new set of anims for no weapon Shep would cost too much memory. But carrying at least 1 gun is always a good idea. Hope that helped.

Wait, does this mean cut-scenes will use the weapons we're currently equipped with and not just default to the avenger?

BIOWARE PLEASE HAVE MY CHILDREN!!!!

[shumworld]

does carrying a "heavy weapon" count with the "cool down" modifier?

[b09boy]

Firesteel7 wrote...

How? If you're a soldier, shouldn't you be able to carry more ammo for two guns than five guns? If you play as a soldier, your main, and really only, source of damage is guns. I don't see how that breaks the game. I'm not talking about bigger clips, there are mods for that, but about the actual spare ammo capacity. If you always carry X number of heatsinks, wouldn't they go towards the guns you are carrying and not just sit in some magical pocket that never gets used?

You're thinking in terms of real world logic.  In terms of game logic, it would be game breaking and would even further push you to carry fewer weapons.  Not much point in additional guns when you can take one preferred one with extra ammo plus the major cooldown bonus.  That's game-breaking.

Applying real world logic, however, you'd typically take what you deemed necessary, not simply as much as you could humanly carry.  Determining that for in game logic would largely negate the systems they put in place.

[JaegerBane]

shumworld wrote...

does carrying a "heavy weapon" count with the "cool down" modifier?

If it does, I hope its minor. My shepard doesn't leave homw without his arc projector.

[cindercatz]

Ahhh.. I get to start my Adept with her sniper again. Heaven.. :-) No more trudging through half a playthrough without her primary weapon. And to cut weight I can drop the pistol, right, and still pick up a sharp cooldown bonus? That's cool.