The way ammunition was implemented into ME2-3, it often played like overheating+: essentially infinite ammo without needing to wait on cooldowns.
Well, I think the clip size was pretty large. Ron Tracey and his henchmen killed thousands with , what, four phasers?
Oh, the 'new' shows. Haven't seen them. I based my response on the original TV shows, not the newer (and in my opinion, sillier) movies and shows. But, at least I understand the statement from before better now. Thanks. 
That was true in ME3 with the ammo crates and increased drop rate from enemies, but not in ME2 - where you were entirely reliant on enemy drops, and could easily run out of clips for some weapons.
I have never played a sniper focused class, so I might not have gotten the brunt of this problem; however, I was never in a scenario where I had zero ammo for every single weapon nor one where I needed a specific weapon, but lacked ammo for it.
I have never played a sniper focused class, so I might not have gotten the brunt of this problem; however, I was never in a scenario where I had zero ammo for every single weapon nor one where I needed a specific weapon, but lacked ammo for it.
1. Because they can. For example, you can pause to select powers in SP, but theres no pause function in MP.
2. Because they can sell players ammo (and other gear) via microtransactions.
Energy weapons aren't making them micro money after they are obtained.
I don't know about you, but if there is anything I detest more in a shooter it's a lack reload animations. It makes the gameplay so straightforward and more braindead than anything. Yeah you don't have to worry about ammo but then you're just sitting there holding down the RT button and occasionally letting it go to cool off the gun. It wasn't fun in ME 1 and it still wouldn't be fun now. It's not interactive enough. BW gets a lot of flak for ME 2 and M3 (most of it deservedly) but if there's one thing I always loved about ME 2 and 3 it was the re-implementation of reloading.
I respectfully disagree with the thread creator.
Depriving players of the opportunity to use the optimal weapon for their preferred playstyle and situation is bad game design. Period. It also makes the character a moron for failing to properly prepare for the mission.
No, it isn't. It's game design that you don't particularly like, but a philosophy that works and has worked in shooters (and other genres) for years. In fact, it's practically the back bone of survival horror. Many people enjoy having to think on their toes and work within varying parameters.
I think about it as yet another vector of difficulty. At its most basic level, difficulty of a level increases by making subsequent enemies have greater health, more damaging attacks, and bigger numbers. You adapt to these changing variables by employing (presumably) increasingly more complex tactics (heightening/lowering aggression, focusing fire, flanking, etc.). Limiting ammunition is just another way to increase difficulty. Rather than having to deal with more enemies, you have to deal with the same amount of enemies while maintaining a limited resource. Now the tactics involved are not only defensive (maintaining the health of the squad through tougher challenges), but decisive: you have to make shots count and make sure that every resource gets used.
And shouldn't players feel like moron for not preparing or adapting to situations? I'm not asking that missions require very specific builds. I just want there to be an extra layer of strategy.
No, it isn't.
In fact, it's practically the back bone of survival horror. Many people enjoy having to think on their toes and work within varying parameters.
I think about it as yet another vector of difficulty.
And shouldn't players feel like moron for not preparing or adapting to situations?
I just want there to be an extra layer of strategy.
You're not making any sense whatsoever. "Because they can" is not a good reason to make your assertions, let alone logical in any way. And you clearly don't understand what the packs are in MP. You buy items, not bullets. They included cooldown weapons in the MP in ME3, and they were obtained through packs like every other weapon.
I know you don't buy bullets in MP. But you can buy instant thermal clip reloads if you're out of ammo. Same slot as the medi-gel when you fall, the shield restorer and instant kill rocket launcher consumables.
Hey, dont get mad on me, your beef is with EA bruh!
I know you don't buy bullets in MP. But you can buy instant thermal clip reloads if you're out of ammo. Same slot as the medi-gel when you fall, the shield restorer and instant kill rocket launcher consumables.
Hey, dont get mad on me, your beef is with EA bruh!
...that's your argument? Dude, you need to find better ways to pass time.
On this we agree. 
Yeah, in this case, it is. ME is survival horror? News to me.
If you're going to make grand sweeping statements like "is bad game design. Period." Do me the courtesy of qualifying them with "in Mass Effect," or "in RPGs."
Even if you did, I would probably still disagree. While Mass Effect isn't survival horror, I don't see why its shooting mechanics couldn't borrow from the genre. Action horror games are generally slower and more methodical than their pure action counterparts. To me, that sort of design would do well in an RPG context, helping to emphasize team tactics and power usage.
Except that in this case, it does not change the difficulty. It just makes the game more tedious and less fun.
Tedious and managing strategy are two sides of a subjective coin. It often comes down to how well the system is implemented and how receptive the player is.
The way ammo was implemented in ME2-3 did indeed lean more towards the tedious side because it was universal and plentiful. The end result for some was essentially an over-long cooldown period rather than an effective resource management mechanic. Properly designed, ammo systems can easily augment difficulty; there are plenty of games that even tie them to their difficulty sliders (Dead Space and Wolfenstein to name a few).
The player does not exist in the game world.
The character is an N7, Council Spectre, and Commander of a military starship with some fairly serious responsibilities. Since failure is not an option, running out of ammo on a routine mission shouldn't be, either.
Dying isn't something a fantastic military commander is likely to do nor is missing every headshot they take nor is running out of medi-gel, but it can happen anyway because Mass Effect is a game controlled by a person. Gameplay is ultimately in the player's hands and Mass Effect doesn't have an auto-resolve mechanic, so until it does I don't think it's unreasonable to have the player managing their ammo reserves.
Besides, while I can't be certain, I think solders can run out of ammo quite frequently.
The only adaptation required here is to switch weapons - because the game design says you can't have enough thermal clips for the weapon you want to use. In game terms, it makes no sense. Thermal clips are supposed to be universal, but the game won't allow me to move them from one weapon to another. And when I do pick up another clip, the game decides which of my weapons will be refilled, actively denying me any strategic choice here.
I think you're conflating general ammo mechanics with Mass Effect's particular implementation of ammunition. I agree, thermal clips don't make a lot of sense the way BioWare designed them, and I can fully understand people's frustration with them mechanically. I'm not advocating for more of the same, I'm advocating for a better system based on the framework of ammunition.
The net result - the only thing that changes - is that I have to switch to a weapon I don't like and don't want to use. That adds nothing of value to gameplay; it only detracts.
In Wolfenstien: TNO when the player changes weapons, they generally change their playstyle slightly. Incidentally, designers and players alike find this sort of system enjoyable because it has an inherent variety to it. Wolfenstein's combat can't get boring even if you try because the game is so good at ousting the player out of repetition while still letting the player maintain a fairly consistent playstyle.
Not liking a certain weapon is not so much a problem with the ammo system, it's a problem with the weapon itself (or the player for choosing it). With enough variety and customization any player can find a handful of weapons that gravitate around their gameplay style. In ME3, a sniper-loving character can grab a scoped Mattox and pistol that suit their playstyle almost perfectly, but play differently enough that the player's tactics are more fluid. That's what I want: players don't have to be forced to carry guns they hate, but I think the next Mass Effect game should encourage variety where it can.
In Fallout, I can use 10mm ammo in any 10mm weapon. If I don't have any 10mm ammo, then I won't be able to use 10mm weapons at all until I get some. That system makes actual logical sense. The thermal clip system as implemented in ME2 does not. I've seen suggestions that thermal clips be pooled instead of assigned to individual weapons - and I think that would be a significant improvement.
This is closer the sort of system I would like to see. Different weapons take different kinds of ammunition, so it's beneficial to take more than one kind of weapon.
Me, too. Since exploration is returning in ME:A, I'm hoping to break out of the shooting galleries strewn with waist-high cover and crates of thermal clips, and get into scenarios with multiple approach options.
Precisely. I want an ammo system so that players are encouraged (and at higher difficulties forced) to take advantage of the variety of approaches and make each encounter a unique and engaging experience.
Oh, the 'new' shows. Haven't seen them. I based my response on the original TV shows, not the newer (and in my opinion, sillier) movies and shows. But, at least I understand the statement from before better now. Thanks.
No, that was TOS. The Omega Glory, specifically.
That is an intensely silly episode, btw. Might force you to re-think your position on relative silliness levels.
Honestly don't remember that episode (just looked it up, yep, that was one of many that sucked . Still think the newer shows are worse though. Note, I did not say the original show was not silly or goofy
Well, off topic so I'll just shut up. Have a good one.
Tedious and managing strategy are two sides of a subjective coin. It often comes down to how well the system is implemented and how receptive the player is.
The way ammo was implemented in ME2-3 did indeed lean more towards the tedious side because it was universal and plentiful.
I think you're conflating general ammo mechanics with Mass Effect's particular implementation of ammunition.
Not liking a certain weapon is not so much a problem with the ammo system, it's a problem with the weapon itself (or the player for choosing it).
With enough variety and customization any player can find a handful of weapons that gravitate around their gameplay style.
In ME3, a sniper-loving character can grab a scoped Mattox
This is closer the sort of system I would like to see. Different weapons take different kinds of ammunition, so it's beneficial to take more than one kind of weapon.
This is such a good post, I wish I'd written it.Indeed. I happen to like managing inventory, which many people find tedious.
I don't happen to like game designers deciding how much "ammo" I am allotted for a standard, common weapon on a room-by-room, battle by battle basis - which was the net result of ME2's design.
Not so plentiful in ME2.
I fully acknowledge that part of the problem was in the design of certain weapons. Case in point: the Incisor (sniper rifle). I loved using that weapon, but the clip drops in ME2 were inadequate. It fires 3 shots at a time, and has a max capacity of 30, so you could fire it only 10 times per full refill. With base damage of only 53.6 (and the fact that all 3 shots might not hit a moving target), you'd have to fire on the same target more than once to kill it.
Compare that to the Mantis (9 shot capacity, 263.1 base damage), Viper (48 shot capacity, 81.9 base damage), and it looks to me like the capacity of the Incisor should have been at least doubled.
If they're going to put strict limits on ammo, they should do a better job of balancing weapons to provide more equivalent ammo utility. Or document these differences in-game.
I'm not interested in discussing ammo mechanics in any game other than ME.
I don't play shooters. I sometimes play RPGs with shooting mechanics - ME trilogy and Fallout.
ME2 restricted which weapon types could be carried by vocation. As an Infiltrator in ME2, once the Incisor's (sniper rifle) clip was exhausted, my options were a pistol or SMG.
Uh-huh. And I couldn't use my favorite ME2 weapon as much as I would have liked, because of it's ammo capacity and the dearth of fresh clips for it.
Yeah, in ME3. The Mattock is categorized as an assault rifle, and not available to some vocations in ME2.
I'd rather return to ME1's weapon overheating system. Or some insta-cool button, or a recyclable clip that slides to the cooler side when you push a button.
I don't see any way to make ammo management a useful mechanic in ME. I don't want to have squadmates squandering valuable resources, but if ammo management does not include squadmates, it isn't going to serve much strategic function.
This isn't a debate about ME2, this is about the future of Mass Effect. I am well aware of your position on ME2; I disagree with it, but I fully understand it, which is why I recommend that the future games in this series not improve on ME2's system, but the idea of ammunition in general.
Indeed. I happen to like managing inventory, which many people find tedious.
As an RPG/FPS hybrid Mass Effect is fraught with conflicts in active and passive management. What should be a process in a menu screen and what should be running process on the battlefield? My bias towards active management is quite obvious, but I do still enjoy methodical RPG systems. In my opinion, both an inventory and an ammunition system can benefit Mass Effect (as they do for many other games) as long as they're well implemented. Clearly, BioWare's previous attempts at either have been divisive among the fanbase, but I think there are ways to implement both that can adequately please most people on either side of the issue.
There is a middle ground with ammunition that encourages (but does not require) varied play while not fully restricting freedom. An implementation similar to Fallout's crossed with ME3's modding and weapon slots may very well yield something close to that ideal. Add in the option of ammo scarcity at higher difficulties and the weapon variety of Dead Space 2, and I think the result would be fantastic.
But it doesn't need to work like that. I'm open to ideas as long as they push the ideal, and I can acquiesce to the idea of overheating or the old clip system because I don't hate either; I just don't think they enhance the gameplay. I obviously prefer clips because they made the gunplay faster in ME2-3, but there's probably a way to make overheating equally satisfying.
I fully acknowledge that part of the problem was in the design of certain weapons. Case in point: the Incisor (sniper rifle). I loved using that weapon, but the clip drops in ME2 were inadequate. It fires 3 shots at a time, and has a max capacity of 30, so you could fire it only 10 times per full refill. With base damage of only 53.6 (and the fact that all 3 shots might not hit a moving target), you'd have to fire on the same target more than once to kill it.
Compare that to the Mantis (9 shot capacity, 263.1 base damage), Viper (48 shot capacity, 81.9 base damage), and it looks to me like the capacity of the Incisor should have been at least doubled.
If they're going to put strict limits on ammo, they should do a better job of balancing weapons to provide more equivalent ammo utility. Or document these differences in-game.
Exactly. Balance is always key to an experience, and I think an ammunition system can effectively achieve both of our wants. For instance, the system could potentially the ammo pools of weapons inversely proportionate to the number we're carrying. In fact, this is sort of how Dead Space's inventory operates: since you get to decide what goes in your inventory, you can allocate as much room to each kind of ammunition as you please (until your inventory caps out of course). It's not perfect and I don't know how well it would translate into Mass Effect, but I think it's closer to achieving what we both want (I hope).
I'm not interested in discussing ammo mechanics in any game other than ME.
I don't play shooters. I sometimes play RPGs with shooting mechanics - ME trilogy and Fallout.
But here's the thing: Mass Effect is a shooter. It's an RPG as well, but that doesn't mean it exists in a vacuum. Quite to the contrary, Mass Effect has clear divides in its RPG and FPS mechanics, thus can (and should) be compared to both FPS and RPG so that it can be an effective combination.
I reference Action Horror because I genuinely believe that the combination of slow, methodical systems and tight, action-packed pacing in that genre would work perfectly with Mass Effect. I reference Wolfenstien because it, like Mass Effect, follow the old shooter convention of letting the player have access to more than two weapons at a time and as such, provides a good outline (though loose it may be) on how to keep shooter combat consistently engaging with its ammunition system.
I'd rather return to ME1's weapon overheating system. Or some insta-cool button, or a recyclable clip that slides to the cooler side when you push a button.
But why though? Is it merely because you didn't like ME2's implementation or do you genuinely think there's no way Mass Effect could do better?
I don't see any way to make ammo management a useful mechanic in ME. I don't want to have squadmates squandering valuable resources, but if ammo management does not include squadmates, it isn't going to serve much strategic function.
In my mind, ammunition would only be a resource for the player. As I said: it's another vector of difficulty in active strategy that requires players to be precise, use all the abilities at their disposal, and consider context to enhance the potency of their actions. It works well in other shooters and it can work well here.
This is such a good post, I wish I'd written it.
Wow. Thank you.
One point I neglected to add is the fact that any sort of ammo management is a factor only for those who choose to play it as a pure shooter. I enjoy using the other powers, and have gotten through many battles without firing a single shot.
But it isn't. Ammo management encourages power usage. Just look at Shadow Warrior 2013: scarcity with weapon ammunition encouraged the use of the sword and its various abilities. You could play the whole game with just the sword, but you didn't have to.
Same with Dead Space. The game designers smash it into your mind that using kinesis on the pointy limbs of enemies and shooting them back into their faces is a good way to conserve ammo.
As an RPG/FPS hybrid Mass Effect is fraught with conflicts in active and passive management. What should be a process in a menu screen and what should be running process on the battlefield?
There is a middle ground with ammunition that encourages (but does not require) varied play while not fully restricting freedom.
Add in the option of ammo scarcity at higher difficulties and the weapon variety of Dead Space 2, and I think the result would be fantastic.
I'm open to ideas as long as they push the ideal,
since you get to decide what goes in your inventory, you can allocate as much room to each kind of ammunition as you please (until your inventory caps out of course).
But here's the thing: Mass Effect is a shooter.
I reference Wolfenstien because it, like Mass Effect, follow the old shooter convention of letting the player have access to more than two weapons at a time and as such, provides a good outline (though loose it may be) on how to keep shooter combat consistently engaging with its ammunition system.
But why though? Is it merely because you didn't like ME2's implementation or do you genuinely think there's no way Mass Effect could do better?
In my mind, ammunition would only be a resource for the player. As I said: it's another vector of difficulty in active strategy that requires players to be precise, use all the abilities at their disposal, and consider context to enhance the potency of their actions. It works well in other shooters and it can work well here.
But it isn't. Ammo management encourages power usage. Just look at Shadow Warrior 2013: scarcity with weapon ammunition encouraged the use of the sword and its various abilities. You could play the whole game with just the sword, but you didn't have to.
Yeah, I'd rather go with an overheat system (like ME1, or the M-7 and Particle Rifle from ME3).
I always assumed the individual in charge of the armory took care of that - along with keeping batteries charged and what not.
Snip
And shouldn't players feel like moron for not preparing or adapting to situations? I'm not asking that missions require very specific builds. I just want there to be an extra layer of strategy.
<<<<<<<<<<()>>>>>>>>>>
Hm...
There comes a point when no amount of strategy will save your azz.... now, presumably the difficulty challenge is "balanced" for a 50/50 win/lose scenario. However, this won't work very well in pickup games.... where turkeys go solo all over the map. So, I'm sympathetic to "I need more ammo".
Also, you can't really prepare when playing Unknown maps with Uknown enemies.. optimally prepare, I mean. ... In this case, I doubt the map challange can be balanced properly.
That's a no-brainer. What's the point of the Claymore, when I have to switch to my club after 18 shots on an extensive land survey? A Thresher Maw easily eats all the heat clips.
I think the solution to this is somewhere in between ME1 and 2/3.
The "ammo" system in ME1 kinda made weapon balancing harder and the combat felt kinda spray-and pray like because unlimited ammo while in ME2 using the Mattock/Mantis/Widow made every battle (at least on instanity) more about scavenging clips rather than killing enemies.
My suggestion is they make thermal clips a "power-up" so in a firefight you're given the option to either wait a couple of seconds between firing burst to let the weapon cool down, or if you're getting overrun you can use the thermal clip power-up which will instantly cool down your weapon.
The thermal clip can then either have a long cool down or you can have a set amount of thermal clip "power ups" on each mission.
Retour en haut