98 réponses à ce sujet

[JonathonPR]

Thermal clips should not be an issue. The power source is what bugs me. Creating the magnetic field to accelerate the the metal shards would quickly drain the batteries and recharging the capacitors would take the most time. While running a current through element zero allows you to alter the effective mass that requires an unknown amount of power. The method of acceleration would also affect how the weapon performs. A coil gun would use a series of capacitors, one for each ring, to reduce strain on the battery. You would also require have to siphon heat from aech coil. Rail guns would require only two capacitors and a cooling system for each rod. A coil gun would require downtime to recalibrate the rings. The major flaw is that I find it hard to belive that they dont have access to room temperature super conductors. Even super cooling normal super conductors would make more sence. Lastly why not use magnetic plasma. Using a plasma you only need a charge time assuming you dont leave it on standby when assuming combat.

[Ashton808]

Gavorn: Kush, smoking, Bioware? Ha ha ha ha ha.

[Icinix]

Over my head, your post did fly man.

[lolzinator]

Just, Just, Wow. Who the hell even cares about this? It's interesting , but the laws of video game science defy everything. I kid you not.

[Mangalores]

lolzinator wrote...

Just, Just, Wow. Who the hell even cares about this? It's interesting , but the laws of video game science defy everything. I kid you not.

I find it mainly annoying for two reasons:
1) ME established that ammo obviously was not an issue so why would anyone go down that road despite ME2 weapons not being any better (120 shots vs 2000+ on an assault rifle? Seems to me a nonbrainer which I gun I'd order for the military)? It's a game feature that needlessly interferred with world immersion by giving a halfassed reason why ammo suddenly became important despite simple observation telling you the explanation doesn't make much sense.

2) You don't have enough ammo to make it through a single mission if the enemy hadn't conveniently dropped more ammo for you. This totally kills suspension when you always find an ammo stash before the next firefight. Gee, I wonder what's around the corner where I found 5 ammo clips and 3 heavy energy cells lieing around?

It's not the feature itself but that imo it is pretty useless in ME2 as it is counteracted by having your enemies drop heaps of ammo so you actually don't have to worry about it which makes you wonder why it was there in the first place. As ME1 established this feature as how in the ME universe weapons work they should have just run with that and thought up something more fancy. It's more an immersion breaker than anything else. In ME they simply made it a non issue which might have made the game simpler but also kept the story going instead of me thinking "Wait a minute, this doesn't make much sense! Where's my Tsunami X?"

If they really think they need ammo in ME3 at least make your squad sensible enough not to expect to loot the whole enemy base for enough shots to take them out!

More importantly: If bullets are important apply same rules to everyone. Why do my squadmates have unlimited ammo and I don't?

Despite my constant griping I really like ME2 as well. One could say my griping is an indication of that. But imo most of my gripes are with gamey features which were introduced just to add gamey features and didn't actually add any gameplay value.

Ammo is one of these things. Fuel and probes anyother. And you doing research for upgrades yet another. I artificially increases gameplay time without actually increasing game experience. Scanning planets to find a mission kind of does because it prevents the find X things within 3 square miles of a badly rendered planet syndrom. You spending half an hour collecting Palladium so a crazy Salarian can magically upgrade the armor alloy on your hull kind of doesn't and breaks immersion because you are not following the story anymore but game a game.

In the end it's story bits gained via gunfights that makes both ME interesting. All the rest should add to that. Ammo scattered about doesn't. More powers or different feeling weapons do. Having to switch weapons to better suit a specific mission does. Harvest Tiberium doesn't...

[Tirigon]

artakartel wrote...

It works EXACTLY like ammo in bald space marine games and overall feels like a huge step back from the usability of the guns in ME1. The old system was much better.

The idea was good. The way they implemented it, not.

[KitsuneRommel]

Mangalores wrote...

1) ME established that ammo obviously was not an issue so why would anyone go down that road despite ME2 weapons not being any better (120 shots vs 2000+ on an assault rifle? Seems to me a nonbrainer which I gun I'd order for the military)? It's a game feature that needlessly interferred with world immersion by giving a halfassed reason why ammo suddenly became important despite simple observation telling you the explanation doesn't make much sense.

ME1 also established that you could have assault rifles with unlimited ammo and no overheating and sniper rifles that could blow people 100s of meters away. Can I have 100,000 of those, please?

Modifié par KitsuneRommel, 26 mai 2010 - 10:58 .

[Tirigon]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

ME1 also established that you could have assault rifles with unlimited ammo and no overheating and sniper rifles that could blow people 100s of meters away. Can I have 100,000 of those, please?

And both is not as unrealistic as you might think. Modern weaponry is waaaay better than everything you see in Mass Effect.

[KitsuneRommel]

Tirigon wrote...

And both is not as unrealistic as you might think. Modern weaponry is waaaay better than everything you see in Mass Effect.

Excuse me?

1. Where does all that ammo come from.
2. The force required to throw someone high up in the air would also rip him to shreds. Yet he seems to take no additional damage OR falling damage from it. Check my sig for a picture.

[Tirigon]

KitsuneRommel wrote...

Excuse me?

1. Where does all that ammo come from.
2. The force required to throw someone high up in the air would also rip him to shreds. Yet he seems to take no additional damage OR falling damage from it. Check my sig for a picture.

1) the pellets shot by the rifles in ME are microscopically small. You can easily store thousands or even millions in the gun.

2) True. Censorship does that to games, it would look better if only the bloody shreds would fly around.

[KitsuneRommel]

Tirigon wrote...

1) the pellets shot by the rifles in ME are microscopically small. You can easily store thousands or even millions in the gun.

2) True. Censorship does that to games, it would look better if only the bloody shreds would fly around.

1. Grain of sand. Not microscopically small.
2. You missed the point. They only take damage from the shot. Not the
acceleration to supersonic speeds (ok a little exaggeration) and the eventual fall to the ground.

[Tazzmission]

what i find ironic is that so called gamers want realism but when bioware puts in desposable clips they cry and moan. now a days i wonder if people are true gamers anymore

[Sovereign 300]

Maybe if you smoked some kush, you wouldn't be so mad.

[Anwarddyn]

1. Grain of sand. Not microscopically small.

The exact quote from Revelation:

"The ammo clip on each weapon held over four thousand rounds; miniature pellets smaller than grains of sand. When fired at sufficient velocity, the nearly microscopic projectiles were capable of inflicting massive damage."

So some form of ammo clip was part of the original source material, but with over 4000 rounds it would rarely be an issue.

Modifié par Anwarddyn, 26 mai 2010 - 04:32 .

[Tazzmission]

Sovereign 300 wrote...

Maybe if you smoked some kush, you wouldn't be so mad.

i do and what about it?

[Sovereign 300]

Tazzmission wrote...

Sovereign 300 wrote...

Maybe if you smoked some kush, you wouldn't be so mad.

i do and what about it?

Good for you then, I just had some afghan a few days ago myself.
My earlier post was directed twoards the OP and all the other people who are nerd-raging over something as small as thermal clips.

[Zulu_DFA]

Adriano87 wrote...

Thermal Clips work by Magic!

So do biotics, tech powers, ammo enchantments, shields and planet mining probes.

[Homey C-Dawg]

Just wondering...



Would the ME1 unlimited ammo/overheat system be so bad if they simply removed the heat dampener/frictionless materials upgrades, but left the rest?

[Apocalypse89]

I think that the mistake people here are doing is that they're trying to link a story explanation to gameplay mechanics. These two concepts have two very different goals: Story aims to be interesting and logical, gameplay aims to be challenging. So it's incredibly difficult and often impossible to have them match up. Indeed, I think the only games which come close to doing so are simulators, which ME clearly isn't.

For example: It's logical to assume that weapons in ME2 would still cool down like they did in ME1, but only have the exchangable thermal clips as a way to keep firing in an emergency. That would actually increase their effectiveness, and for all we know that might be how they function in the story. But imagine if it worked that way in the game: you'd have the same infinite ammo system as ME1, except now there's an "instant cooldown" button. The balance would be completely broken. So all the logical holes in the thermal clip system, such as the lack of cool down, the way a specific weapon can run out of ammo but others don't, etc. are there purely for the sake of gameplay, and have no relevance to the storyline explanation.

Another example, which applies to both games: ME takes place nearly 200 years in the future, where technology has vastly improved in all aspects. One would assume that weapons have also become more effective, and the lore tells us that they did. But in gameplay, firearms take several shots to take down even an unshielded/armored enemy, and are extremely inaccurate even by modern standards. This makes no sense storywise, but if they did add super effective weapons, the balance would again be broken. So weapons behave the way they are, purely for gameplay reasons. This has no relevance to the effectiveness of weapons in the story, and indeed, people tend to die by gunfire much quicker in cutscenes than in gameplay.

In short: Storyline and gameplay are two frequently opposing concepts, and if you treat them both with the same logic, you'll quickly run into contradictions. So it's best to take them seperately, so anything about thermal clips that isn't mentioned in the Codex or dialogue is purely a gameplay mechanic and has nothing to do with the plot. Criticize them for their effect on game balance, not their effect on plot, because Mass Effect's(and 99% of games out there for that matter) entire gameplay system would fall apart if you treat it the same way.

[KitsuneRommel]

Homey C-Dawg wrote...

Just wondering...

Would the ME1 unlimited ammo/overheat system be so bad if they simply removed the heat dampener/frictionless materials upgrades, but left the rest?

I don't find it bad, just stupid. What WAS bad was the Spectre weapons. Sure, it saves me a lot of time when I know I can just vendor all the weapons but it also killed any variety (which was in short order in ME1 weaponry anyway).

[Mangalores]

Apocalypse89 wrote...

I think that the mistake people here are doing is that they're trying to link a story explanation to gameplay mechanics. These two concepts have two very different goals: Story aims to be interesting and logical, gameplay aims to be challenging. So it's incredibly difficult and often impossible to have them match up. Indeed, I think the only games which come close to doing so are simulators, which ME clearly isn't.

problem for me it is both. If the Codex etc. hadn't been there I could have swallowed it as "ok, they did it for gameplay" But the plot explanation (Codex) is plainly stupid because it then compares to ME1 and what changed and this doesn't make sense.

As for gameplay it is imo a shallow feature as it suggests more depths and difficulty until you realize the level design is constructed to offset any actual problems you might have.

The only important stuff seems the heavy weapon ammo, the rest is pretty pointless gameplaywise (maybe not on insanity but pretty much on any other setting). So I have to reload? Well, had to go back in cover in ME1 as well. So what will I do when I'm in cover? Reload, regardless of how many shots are still in the magazine.

ME2 has imo various "shallow" features which are solely there so it feels more like a different game type without actually doing anything substantial with it that adds to the game. E.g. more close quarter fighting with more cover is what made ME2's combat interesting, that I had to reload my weapons didn't.

[Lumikki]

artakartel wrote...

It works EXACTLY like ammo in bald space marine games and overall feels like a huge step back from the usability of the guns in ME1. The old system was much better.

Old system was crap, because allowed to get rid of overheating too, but picking clips from ground is also crap.
In ME1 I could make my pistol feel like machine gun. Because removing overheat issue with weapon mods.
Also enemies overheatign you weapons, was beyond unbelievable. What army would bring weapons in battle what can be disabled by enemy by remote? Clip system it self is fine, but clips on ground, mm..

I think they should mix these too.

Heavy Pistol (clips)
Shotgun (clips)
Sniper rifle (clips)

Haevy weapon (clips & overheat based weapon type)

Submachine gun (overheat)
Assoult rifle (overheat)

Idea is that if gun is one shot and short time delay, then use clips. If the gun is design to have continue rate fire, then use overheat system.

Modifié par Lumikki, 28 mai 2010 - 01:24 .

[FuturePasTimeCE]

Icinix wrote...

Over my head, your post did fly man.

LMAO.
--------------------------------
--------------------------------

Dude, I kind of liked the Mass Effect 1's weapon's overheating system more, than the insert heatsink/ reload energy ammo clips of M E 2.

It's just a fun game still, so who cares?
------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------

Lumikki wrote...

artakartel wrote...

It works EXACTLY like ammo in bald space marine games and overall feels like a huge step back from the usability of the guns in ME1. The old system was much better.

Old system was crap, because allowed to get rid of overheating too, but picking clips from ground is also crap. 
In ME1 I could make my pistol feel like machine gun. Because removing overheat issue with weapon mods.
Also enemies overheatign you weapons, was beyond unbelievable. What army would bring weapons in battle what can be disabled by enemy by remote? Clip system it self is fine, but clips on ground, mm..

I think they should mix these too.

Heavy Pistol (clips)
Shotgun (clips)
Sniper rifle (clips)

Haevy weapon (clips & overheat based weapon type)

Submachine gun (overheat)
Assoult rifle (overheat)

Idea is that if gun is one shot and short time delay, then use clips. If the gun is design to have continue rate fire, then use overheat system. 

yeah, that'd be a neat idea.

Modifié par FuturePasTimeCE, 28 mai 2010 - 01:32 .