25 réponses à ce sujet

[Erez Kristal]

I understand the need for variety between weapons. but considering the bullets travels at a few km a second. we have a weapon familar protagonist and vi aim aid. its kind of funny to large crosshairs on some of the weapons.

Weapons should be different from one another when it comes to: stability, damage and rate of fire.
Immersion means a big deal when it comes to gameplay mechanics and i dont know why its recieve a bad treatment in areas like this one.

The lore behind some of the armor pieces also need a fix.  weapons with vi that makes the bullet hit more vital area are ridiculous. what happens if im already hitting a vital area, how can they increase the damage?
Better to stick with armor pieces whichincrease the raw energy of the weapon. 
 

Modifié par erezike, 12 septembre 2013 - 12:37 .

[BigBad]

No matter how accurate the gun itself is, it's still being physically held and pointed by a human (or turian/salarian/etc.) arm. Considering that mass effect weapons are orders of magnitude more powerful than conventional small arms, to the point that they can't even fully compensate for recoil with mass effect fields, it makes perfect sense that they're not pinpoint accurate.

Also, when was the last time you saw extremely complex task-oriented software work at 100 percent efficiency 100 percent of the time?

[Erez Kristal]

As i wrote above weapons should have differenty stabiliy rates(recoil)

When it comes to weapons accuracy. modern weapons shoot more you point them up to 100 meters.

It is safe to assume Scfi 2186 weapons will do the same on 30 meters. if not 3,000 meters.

Recoil is still an issue. but recoil doesnt have any inluence on on the first bullet fired.

[Br3admax]

BigBad wrote...

No matter how accurate the gun itself is, it's still being physically held and pointed by a human (or turian/salarian/etc.) arm. Considering that mass effect weapons are orders of magnitude more powerful than conventional small arms, to the point that they can't even fully compensate for recoil with mass effect fields, it makes perfect sense that they're not pinpoint accurate.

Also, when was the last time you saw extremely complex task-oriented software work at 100 percent efficiency 100 percent of the time?

And when was the last time that the target stood perfectly still? And when was the last time that kinetic barriers were not taken into account. Also the guns are only in accurate at bursts. Wut'surpoint? 

[Han Shot First]

There are so many variables that go into rifle marksmanship that I'm not sure computer software will ever replace old-fashioned training and know-how by the operator.

Good rifle marksmanship doesn't just involve pointing and shooting.

The weapon must have a pre-established battlesight zero, and adjustments made for windage and elevation. The shooter then has to have a good sight alignment and sight picture, a good stock-to-cheek weld and eye relief, good breath control, firing between the natural pause in his breathing, and using a slow steady squeeze of the trigger.

I don't think software could ever be designed that could compensate for all the human elements involved. Every shooter is going to have slight differences in bone structure or musculature that is going to effect aiming, and the software would have to compensate for the shooter's breathing and any other movement that effects sight alignment and sight picture. Every shooter is going to have a slightly different battlesight zero. It would also have to account for environmental factors like wind that can send a round wide if not compensated for.

Besides automatic aiming being a bad gameplay mechanic that would make a game too easy, I think it is actually a bit more realistic that Shepard still has to aim and presumably, apply good marksmanship fundamentals.

[Erez Kristal]

han shot first, If today guns without the computer software which will be able to make it easier in the future. when i take a m4 and shoot at a traget. at a 100 meters. it will hit where i aim. There is no reason in the world why the avenger, mattock or revenant wont do the same. the crosshair should be pinpoint accurate for the first bullet. you can have recoil as big as you want. but point stand the crosshair should be laser-pinpoint.

i didnt imply that the play wont have to aim. i am only saying that you hit where you aimed.
None of that ai assiatance for aiming nonsesne like in me1.

Modifié par erezike, 12 septembre 2013 - 10:04 .

[BioWareAre****s]

erezike wrote...

han shot first, If today guns without the computer software which will be able to make it easier in the future. when i take a m4 and shoot at a traget. at a 100 meters. it will hit where i aim. There is no reason in the world why the avenger, mattock or revenant wont do the same. the crosshair should be pinpoint accurate for the first bullet. you can have recoil as big as you want. but point stand the crosshair should be laser-pinpoint.

But if every single shot (single as in the first shot fired in a burst) was pin-point accurate, then shooting on this game would simply be too easy; single-shot weapons would hit their target precisely every time, and automatic weapons could be fired in bursts (which would also reduce kick-back). It may be more realistic but it would be so ridiculously easy it wouldn't be any fun anymore.

[Erez Kristal]

You already have some pinpoint accurate weapons like the saber, carnifex, paladin,crusader. they dont make the game less fun. they make it more realistic. rate of fire, damage per shot and stability, clip size. uniqe abilities. still make for a great difference between weapons. if you are worrying about making the game too easy, its easy to compensate it by making the game harder.

In crysis one i dont think anyone complained about pin point accuracy of the weapons. and you also had even more abilities than in mass effect.

[AlexMBrennan]

The easier explanation for random "bullet spread" is that guns firing projectiles at that speed suffer tremendously from being fired in an atmosphere (which is, for example, why me make tank shells out of dense uranium rather than just firing less-dense projectiles at greater speed).

You do realise that "crosshairs size" is how stability is commonly implemented? The size of the crosshairs is a visualisation of the fact that the gun is no longer aimed at the point you are trying to shoot due to recoil. If you don't like that, you can go play ARMA I suppose.

Considering that mass effect weapons are orders of magnitude more powerful than conventional small arms

Unlike small arms, however, they are not subject to the laws of physics: You take a projectile, make it mass-less, accelerate it (minimal momentum, thus minimal recoil) and then increase the mass back to normal once it has left the barrel (violating conservation of momentum via mass effect magic).

Or at least that is how it would have to work if there is to be any point in using mass effect fields in weapons technology.

I don't think software could ever be designed that could compensate for all the human elements involved.

Let's see
1) measure distance to target
2) measure wind speed
3) adjust sights based on distance and wind speed
4) measure target's speed and calculate how much to lead the target by based on range
5) fire

Yeah, no way a computer could be useful here.

[Redbelle]

Modern tank tanks operate computer's that take into account distance, windspeed, air pressure etc etc.

This far into the future where computer's can fit onto an arm, it makes sense that they could include this tech into personal side arms as the model of miniturisation as time progresses takes place.

With regards to accuracy, it must be noted that accuracy corresponds to barrel length, rifling in the barrel, though this may be off since guns fire sliver's shaven off a ammo block and fired with mass effect fields.....

Sooooo. I'm stumped. I'd just go with, The greater the force and the shorter the barrel, the less accurate the "bullet". And vice versa. At the very lease, that would explain how the BW fires with such power, but has an enormous barrel to compensate.

Maybe the sliver spins too from barrel rifling, or maybe the guns are smooth bore and the mass effect fields provide the spin needed. If so, then the level of spin the mass effect fiields offer dictates the accuracy and the barrel gives the sliver the area to apply the spin needed.

[Erez Kristal]

Alex. i would make a comparsion between someone who was just a normal soldier in modern time(myself) and shepard who is the best soldier humanity add to offer. with scfi equipment that gives him increased strength which can allow for superme strength.

I i can easily headshot targets with glock pistol or hit full human sized targets on a 150 meters with m4. you can expect a special ops soldier with high tech equipment to have a minimal crosshair with pinpoint accuracy for the first bullet fired. the guns we see in mass effect have ridiculous accuracy, assault rifles in mass effect are efficent for 1 km at the very least. they all should have pinpoint accuracy for the first bullet fired. the only unbroken assault rifle is the saber. it has pinpoint accuracy and decent recoil. i cant see why the other weapons dont have the same accuracy. if they do less damage then they should have less recoil and faster rate of fire its a very simple tradeoff.

Mass effect 2 got it right once you had the accuracy boost. for assault rifles. mattock and vidicator were both very accurate for the first bullet.

Remember in mass effect you are mostly firing at ridiculous ranges. ussualy between 10-30 meters and 50 meters at most. the first bullet must hit where you aim and have a tiny corsshair. anything else is unrealistic.

[Han Shot First]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

.

I don't think software could ever be designed that could compensate for all the human elements involved.

Let's see
1) measure distance to target
2) measure wind speed
3) adjust sights based on distance and wind speed
4) measure target's speed and calculate how much to lead the target by based on range
5) fire

Yeah, no way a computer could be useful here.

I didn't say that computer would be of no use. I said software could never be designed that could effectively compensate for all the human elements involved. It would also have to compensate for the individual shooter's BZO, the shooter's pulse, the shooter's breathing, any other movement that effects sight alignment and sight picture, the individual shooter's bone structure and musculature, stock-to-cheek weld and eye relief, and the individual shooter's trigger control, all of which have an impact on aiming.

In effect the software would be tailored for each individual rifleman, and I can't see that as ever being more cost effective or practical than the old-fashioned method of simply teaching the rifleman how to apply good marksmanship fundamentals, and training them to do it themselves.

At best you might see software that automatically adjusts for windage and elevation and leaves the rest to the shooter, which IIRC is what weapons in the Mass Effect universe supposedly do. And even then I would imagine that riflemen would still be trained to make their own windage and elevation adjustments, as Murphy's Laws would sometimes apply. Anything that can break, will.

Remember in mass effect you are mostly firing at ridiculous ranges. ussualy between 10-30 meters and 50 meters at most. the first bullet must hit where you aim and have a tiny corsshair. anything else is unrealistic

In the Mass Effect games you are usually fighting enemies at ranges that would be considered close combat by military standards. The vast majority of the time contact in the ME Universe occurs at well under the equivalent of 100 meters. You are correct in stating that these are basically point-and-shoot ranges for even current military weapons and it would be hard to miss. Still, I think the games get it right in dialing down the accuracy a bit as the alternative would be gameplay that is far too easy. And designing levels where contact frequently occurs at 300 or even 500 meters out would be unnecessary drain on resources.

[BioWareAre****s]

erezike wrote...

You already have some pinpoint accurate weapons like the saber, carnifex, paladin,crusader. they dont make the game less fun. they make it more realistic. rate of fire, damage per shot and stability, clip size. uniqe abilities. still make for a great difference between weapons. if you are worrying about making the game too easy, its easy to compensate it by making the game harder.

In crysis one i dont think anyone complained about pin point accuracy of the weapons. and you also had even more abilities than in mass effect.

My point is, if every weapon had pinpoint accuracy, it would be too easy. Having some with it is fine. 

Saying that other games do it isn't going to change my opinion on this...those games aren't ME, they have a ton of differences, and rely on different elements to make them entertaining. Given the style of combat that ME provides, having weapons with perfect accuracy is going to be too easy. Although, tbh, I'm not really sure why I'm trying to point this out, given that the game is over a year old and BW isn't gonna change it now.

[Erez Kristal]

When it comes to weapons accuracy. realistic = immersion. i can get it how a a non accurate weapons can be fun to play. for me its very frustrating and it greatly breaks immersion when a scfi weapon isnt accurate.

If gameplay is too easy. there are many ways to increase the difficulty level that would fit in with the game lore. like simply make enemies faster, stronger and in greater numbers.

[Ieldra]

erezike wrote...
When it comes to weapons accuracy. realistic = immersion. i can get it how a a non accurate weapons can be fun to play. for me its very frustrating and it greatly breaks immersion when a scfi weapon isnt accurate.

This is a case of "reality is unrealistic". It is a not-so-well-known reality that more than 90% of all shots fired by firearms miss, and even at a distance of up to two meters (!!!), the missing rate is still around 50%. This is because most situations where you fire aren't situations where you calmly aim and then pull the trigger, or only have to move your fingers a few centimetres to point your gun in the right direction.

Modifié par Ieldra2, 14 septembre 2013 - 07:01 .

[Rusty Sandusky]

I like to nitpick but this is ridiculous.

[Erez Kristal]

Ieldra2 wrote...


This is a case of "reality is unrealistic". It is a not-so-well-known reality that more than 90% of all shots fired by firearms miss, and even at a distance of up to two meters (!!!), the missing rate is still around 50%. This is because most situations where you fire aren't situations where you calmly aim and then pull the trigger, or only have to move your fingers a few centimetres to point your gun in the right direction.

Its up to the player if he misses or hit.
missing rates are due to the people firing and have nothing to do with the guns themselves.

There are special techniques than enable a better coping with stress-shooting. even with a very high heartrate- you can hit straight.

I was once able to release 10 acucurate shots under 1,4 seconds from 7 meters range with an unloaded m-16 dont feed me with false statistics.

If the guns were calibrated to the user. they will always hit where you aimed them to in reallife. 
It ridiculous to penalize the players on this terf.
The only reason it is done is to give a point of using sniper rifles at 20-30 meters range.

Which is ridiculous.

Gameplay twist the universe in such a twisted way. 
Currently the only unbroken guns are the mattock& vindicator(me2 versions), and phaeston and the saber.(me3).

ThisOnesUsername wrote...

I like to nitpick but this is ridiculous.

For me its a huge issue. i like to be challange in game not due to idiotic gameplay hindering mecahnics but due to the verstialty and skills of my enemies.  the bow in skyrim has pinpoint accuracy and its still hard to hit a moving target. which is how it should be.
There are so many ways to make the game harder for players. this just isnt it.

I am aware you can put a scope on everything. but it should also be festable achieving pinpoint crosshairs without using scopes while choosing to aim the weapon and standing still.

Modifié par erezike, 14 septembre 2013 - 09:44 .

[AlexMBrennan]

I was once able to release 10 acucurate shots under 1,4 seconds from 7 meters range with an unloaded m-16 dont feed me with false statistics.

That sentence suggests that you wouldn't notice a valid statistic if it hit you over the head with a large wiffle bat.

[Han Shot First]

If you want to talk about a bizarre unrealistic element regarding accuracy in shooters (or RPGs with shooter gameplay) what's up with pistols being more accurate at long ranges than assault rifles and machine guns?

In reality they are short range weapons.

Halo was probably the worst offender, with pistols functioning almost like a sniper rifle.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 14 septembre 2013 - 04:57 .

[BioWareAre****s]

erezike wrote...


If gameplay is too easy. there are many ways to increase the difficulty level that would fit in with the game lore. like simply make enemies faster, stronger and in greater numbers.

That's not fun, it's just frustrating; especially given that if the weapons are more accurate then like you suggested, they should have bigger drawbacks elsewhere, such as reduced ammo capacity or clip size. I want a game where I can run around killing stuff, not camp in corners carefully conserving ammo and spending forever-and-a-day lining up my shots. Besides, the typical 'Bigger-Stronger-Faster' method is cheap and terrible. Plenty of games have taken that route and failed epically.

[philippe willaume]

FluffyCannibal wrote...

erezike wrote...


If gameplay is too easy. there are many ways to increase the difficulty level that would fit in with the game lore. like simply make enemies faster, stronger and in greater numbers.

That's not fun, it's just frustrating; especially given that if the weapons are more accurate then like you suggested, they should have bigger drawbacks elsewhere, such as reduced ammo capacity or clip size. I want a game where I can run around killing stuff, not camp in corners carefully conserving ammo and spending forever-and-a-day lining up my shots. Besides, the typical 'Bigger-Stronger-Faster' method is cheap and terrible. Plenty of games have taken that route and failed epically.

I agree with you in principle though ideally the game should offer both. personally I like both.

That being said getting in concealed position and taking for ever in lining up shot is what sniping is about.

With system like the Feline, you have a fully integrated battlefield with metrological info. 
Ballistic calculator fits on mobile phone.

All the telemetry can be acquired by laser and could be confirmed corrected through the integrated battlefield data system and displayed in the reticule or PDA  if you use the gun from behind cover.

Basically even today we could marke the equivalent of US and German WWII gyroscopic fighter gun-sight for riffle. 
So it should really be a piece of cake for the omni-tool

As for weapons pin point accuracy, Even though some ammunition are inherently more accurate than other and length of barrel vs powder burn rate have an effect of optimum range.  
Provided that you are using the weapon in question within those parameters with an adapted sight system. your fist bullet will land where you are point the gun.
Now with a MAT49/grease gun/MP40 (9 mill parabellum), with a little training, You can reliably hit the head at 30 meters and the trunk up to 75 meters. 
Even with a good Kar98 (7.9*57) and a 4*32 scope, you can get a head shot up to 400 m and we are talking WWII tech.

now since the FG42, we know that it is possible to use full bore cartridge in full auto in a battle riffle/early assault rifle and reducing the felt recoil to almost nothing (ie recoils absorber in the stock and muzzle break. 
So in ME universe, they surely that can match WWII tech.

As fluffy said, there should be a drawback  to more potent ammunition.

If you compare a 5.56 steel/lead cored with 7.62 ball (lead core), you will get better armour penetration from the 5.56 bullet.  

now It is true that 7.62 can be constructed with the same weakness of the jacket at the cannelure as the US
version of the SS109. (ie like the 7.62 nato made in Germany in the 70-90) .
As it is equally true that the SS109 lead/steel core technology can be used in larger calibres to greater effect. Since 7.62*54 (Russian) and 7.9*57 (German) were used in aircraft machine gun, explosive round were available. Literally bullet with a HE charge, it will flash on impact and unlike tracers it does not tell every one where the shot came from.

Nonetheless, due to the size, you can carry 3 times more  5.56 rounds than  full bore cartridge.


Phil

Modifié par philippe willaume, 14 septembre 2013 - 08:57 .

[Erez Kristal]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

I was once able to release 10 acucurate shots under 1,4 seconds from 7 meters range with an unloaded m-16 dont feed me with false statistics.

That sentence suggests that you wouldn't notice a valid statistic if it hit you over the head with a large wiffle bat.

Afcourse i would.
But if you plan to quote a statistic into this debate you have to include your source in order for me to pick on it,

In yom kippor the hit rate was about 5%
Because most soldiers sprayed full auto. 

but if you check elite close quarters intervention squads like swat or other special forces unit. you will find their percentages to be much higer.
There are special techniques that help soldeirs negates lack of accuracy due to stress. the stronger the soldier the better his tenqunique. shepard strength with all of his improvement sand suit will easily make him on par with the strongest people alive. which will also grant him a great edge when using these techniques.  

Han Shot First wrote...

If you want to talk about a bizarre unrealistic element regarding accuracy in shooters (or RPGs with shooter gameplay) what's up with pistols being more accurate at long ranges than assault rifles and machine guns? 

In reality they are short range weapons.

Halo was probably the worst offender, with pistols functioning almost like a sniper rifle.

i agree, i hate the way pistols are overpowered in games. no one in their right mine will choose to fire a pistol to take down their enemy if they have a rifle next to them. the only reason to use a pistol is in extremely close quarters and undercover operations where it could give you a stealth edge. assault rifles are stronger and far more accurate

Modifié par erezike, 15 septembre 2013 - 12:44 .

[Erez Kristal]

FluffyCannibal wrote...

erezike wrote...


If gameplay is too easy. there are many ways to increase the difficulty level that would fit in with the game lore. like simply make enemies faster, stronger and in greater numbers.

That's not fun, it's just frustrating; especially given that if the weapons are more accurate then like you suggested, they should have bigger drawbacks elsewhere, such as reduced ammo capacity or clip size. I want a game where I can run around killing stuff, not camp in corners carefully conserving ammo and spending forever-and-a-day lining up my shots. Besides, the typical 'Bigger-Stronger-Faster' method is cheap and terrible. Plenty of games have taken that route and failed epically.

How can you explain the bad reception of the M-76 Revenant when compared to the mattock-harrier or the saber.

[BioWareAre****s]

erezike wrote...

FluffyCannibal wrote...

erezike wrote...


If gameplay is too easy. there are many ways to increase the difficulty level that would fit in with the game lore. like simply make enemies faster, stronger and in greater numbers.

That's not fun, it's just frustrating; especially given that if the weapons are more accurate then like you suggested, they should have bigger drawbacks elsewhere, such as reduced ammo capacity or clip size. I want a game where I can run around killing stuff, not camp in corners carefully conserving ammo and spending forever-and-a-day lining up my shots. Besides, the typical 'Bigger-Stronger-Faster' method is cheap and terrible. Plenty of games have taken that route and failed epically.

How can you explain the bad reception of the M-76 Revenant when compared to the mattock-harrier or the saber.

1) Butt-hurt fanboys that don't like the mega-nerf the Revenant got in ME3
2) As much as I like the Revenant (can't say I use it much in SP, but I take it out on a date every so often in MP) I find that the Harrier is a better overall weapon. It makes things die faster. Can't comment on the Saber, never used it. Only MP weapon I don't have . 
I'm not really sure what you mean here though...are you saying that the Revenant has your perfect aim thing, or that the other weapons are bigger-faster-better but people prefer those? Because if it's the latter, of course players are gonna favour better weapons. It's called taking the easy way out 

I've just realised that you're probably talking about the ammo capacity...I'm very sleepy and my brain switched off there for a moment...

The thing with those weapons is they are only some not all. Like I said before, having some weapons with a limited capacity/brilliant accuracy, etc. is fine, as long as it's not all weapons. In ME3 if I want to use the Harrier, etc. I can back it up with another weapon with a larger capacity, or if weight isn't so much of an issue, I can take several low-capacity weapons. Basically, I'm not forced to camp in a corner and conserve ammo. I think you'd be pretty hard-pressed to find someone who only uses one or two low-capacity weapons at a time without at least playing very power-heavy to make up for it (and I'm talking very power-heavy, like a Vanguard).

Modifié par FluffyCannibal, 16 septembre 2013 - 12:08 .

[Erez Kristal]

I fully endorse limitations on more powerful weapons: weight, ammo capacity, high recoil, low rate of fire.
Which is why i think the saber, mattock, harrier, typhon. Phaeston and the vindicator are the most ballanced weapons. but i still believe the vindicator and mattock should have me2 accuracy levels. in me2 you would still miss if enemies where moving around. this is how it should be. i was never a fan of the M-76 Revenant, i prefer to go for the head everytime.