86 réponses à ce sujet

[Bayonet Hipshot]

Greetings folks.

 

I had a blast playing Overwatch open beta that ended a few days ago.
 

However the one thing that stood out to me in Overwatch was how Blizzard managed to make a good first person shooter game with a diverse set of weapons that did not involve ammunition scavenging.

 

In Overwatch, weapons had unlimited ammunition but they still need to be reloaded after being fired a couple of times. If we could implement this system in a Mass Effect game, that means we can have a game without having ammunition boxes.

 

What do you think about this ?

[AlanC9]

You played Overwatch, I didn't. I take it ammo conservation isn't a thing, and it's just clip management?

[Killroy]

You played Overwatch, I didn't. I take it ammo conservation isn't a thing, and it's just clip management?

 

Yes. You can reload infinitely, without having to run to ammo dumps. Every weapon is unique, and some don't use ammo at all, but every weapon has infinite ammo.

[iM3GTR]

Yes. You can reload infinitely, without having to run to ammo dumps. Every weapon is unique, and some don't use ammo at all, but every weapon has infinite ammo.

Makes me wish that's how it worked in ME2.

[RoboticWater]

Ammo management is an intentional design choice. Overwatch's decision not to have it isn't anything special. In fact, considering its (albeit loose) similarity to MOBAs, it should't be surprising that normal attacks are inexhaustible.

 

Infinite ammo in a game like CoD is probably pointless given the high TTK. There's little chance that a player will live long enough to completely run out of ammo before they die. Compare that to a game like Halo which intentionally forces players to swap weapons frequently and conserve ammunition of more powerful weapons.

 

For a game like Mass Effect, I could go either way. The current ammo system is, much like CoD's, effectively pointless because ammo drops are so abundant. As a result, the benefits of ammo restrictions (encouraging weapon variety, power usage, exploration, etc.) are almost entirely lost. So if BioWare want to keep the current combat loop, then an overheat system with short cooldowns (or long cooldowns with limited-use instant reload clips) would likely result in similar gameplay without the need to constantly pick up ammo.

 

However, BioWare could go the opposite direction and and impose stricter restrictions on ammunition a la DOOM or Dead Space. Creating separate ammunitions for each weapon type would, as I said earlier, encourage players to swap weapons more frequently, conserve ammunition via powers, and explore the level to keep all their weapons stocked. Effectively, it would be another layer of complexity, but there would be a greater risk of BioWare messing things up and it doesn't play too well with lore (though I'd imagine weapon-specific heat sinks wouldn't be a huge stretch).

[10K]

Okay I don't get it, I didn't play Overwatch. Isn't the point of reloading is to load the gun with something? It seems like a wasted animation and doesn't make sense. Why reload if you have nothing to reload the weapon with? In ME2 and 3 there was technically unlimited ammo, but you had to reload to switch out thermal clips to avoid overheating of the weapon. I like the thermal clip system and I hope they stick with it because it works well within the lore. Maybe they could revamp it a little. But reloading for no reason doesn't really sound interesting. I'd rather EAware reuse ME1 overheating mechanic.

[10K]

 

However, BioWare could go the opposite direction and and impose stricter restrictions on ammunition a la DOOM or Dead Space. Creating separate ammunitions for each weapon type would, as I said earlier, encourage players to swap weapons more frequently, conserve ammunition via powers, and explore the level to keep all their weapons stocked. Effectively, it would be another layer of complexity, but there would be a greater risk of BioWare messing things up and it doesn't play too well with lore (though I'd imagine weapon-specific heat sinks wouldn't be a huge stretch).

I actually like this Idea of strict thermal clips, we're in a totally different galaxy, why not? It would also create a bit of a challenge, plus cause players to relie more on there character powers and other weapons.

[9TailsFox]

Particle Rifle.

Most futuristic weapon in the galaxy, 50000 years old. Just please give me weapon with cooling system installed, witch need replace once a week or something. You telling I can use my all body as big bullet, but you can't make infinity ammo.

[Addictress]

I actually like this Idea of strict thermal clips, we're in a totally different galaxy, why not? It would also create a bit of a challenge, plus cause players to relie more on there character powers and other weapons.

Definitely. The lore explained the thermal clips as being a universal design, relying on drops from others. There are no others in Andromeda. They need to either severely restrict ammo drops or go with full heat sink.

[Sartoz]

Ammo management is an intentional design choice. Overwatch's decision not to have it isn't anything special. In fact, considering its (albeit loose) similarity to MOBAs, it should't be surprising that normal attacks are inexhaustible.

 

Infinite ammo in a game like CoD is probably pointless given the high TTK. There's little chance that a player will live long enough to completely run out of ammo before they die. Compare that to a game like Halo which intentionally forces players to swap weapons frequently and conserve ammunition of more powerful weapons.

 

For a game like Mass Effect, I could go either way. The current ammo system is, much like CoD's, effectively pointless because ammo drops are so abundant. As a result, the benefits of ammo restrictions (encouraging weapon variety, power usage, exploration, etc.) are almost entirely lost. So if BioWare want to keep the current combat loop, then an overheat system with short cooldowns (or long cooldowns with limited-use instant reload clips) would likely result in similar gameplay without the need to constantly pick up ammo.

 

However, BioWare could go the opposite direction and and impose stricter restrictions on ammunition a la DOOM or Dead Space. Creating separate ammunitions for each weapon type would, as I said earlier, encourage players to swap weapons more frequently, conserve ammunition via powers, and explore the level to keep all their weapons stocked. Effectively, it would be another layer of complexity, but there would be a greater risk of BioWare messing things up and it doesn't play too well with lore (though I'd imagine weapon-specific heat sinks wouldn't be a huge stretch).

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Bio is "messing things up", if you read their tweets. Jump jets do that.  However, you may be on to something with "Creating separate ammunition for each weapon type would, as I said earlier, encourage players to swap weapons more frequently, conserve ammunition via powers, and explore the level to keep all their weapons stocked".  Recent tweets indicate some difficult combat situations, where a game level hands the players'  azzez to them.  To me, this means that combat mechanics have changed sufficiently to create difficulties for experienced Bio developers.

 

However, overly complex combat serves no one, though. I can't see it if EA wants to sell the game to the masses / casual gamers.  The tweets don't mention the chosen difficulty level.

[Sanunes]

The problem with this comparison is that they are two different genres that have different goals for the player. You could then also use the argument that BioWare should use a set character for each class and remove all customization because that is how Blizzard did it in Overwatch.

 

Would I like a different thought process for ammo in Andromeda? Sure, but I would rather have an idea based on what Andromeda is going to be then based on what another game is doing.

[Arcian]

Okay I don't get it, I didn't play Overwatch. Isn't the point of reloading is to load the gun with something? It seems like a wasted animation and doesn't make sense. Why reload if you have nothing to reload the weapon with?

You misunderstand, Overwatch has infinite ammo in the sense that you run out of ammo and need to reload, but will never run out of new clips.

Definitely. The lore explained the thermal clips as being a universal design, relying on drops from others. There are no others in Andromeda. They need to either severely restrict ammo drops or go with full heat sink.

Yeah I can't wait to see how they explain Andromeda being littered with heat sinks.

[KirkyX]

You misunderstand, Overwatch has infinite ammo in the sense that you run out of ammo and need to reload, but will never run out of new clips.

Yeah I can't wait to see how they explain Andromeda being littered with heat sinks.

I've always wondered why they didn't go that route with Mass Effect 2.

 

I get why they wanted to add a reloading mechanic - a lot of people find the simple act of reloading a gun in a game quite satisfying, and it's easier to balance around than the old overheat mechanic - but surely a similar effect could've been achieved by just having each gun only be able to fire a certain number of shots before you had to hit the 'vent' button, or whatever? It would've been much less dodgy lore-wise, at least, and worked well with a Gears-style 'active reload'.

[RoboticWater]

                                                                                       <<<<<<<<<<(0)>>>>>>>>>>

 

Bio is "messing things up", if you read their tweets. Jump jets do that.  However, you may be on to something with "Creating separate ammunition for each weapon type would, as I said earlier, encourage players to swap weapons more frequently, conserve ammunition via powers, and explore the level to keep all their weapons stocked".  Recent tweets indicate some difficult combat situations, where a game level hands the players'  azzez to them.  To me, this means that combat mechanics have changed sufficiently to create difficulties for experienced Bio developers.

 

However, overly complex combat serves no one, though. I can't see it if EA wants to sell the game to the masses / casual gamers.  The tweets don't mention the chosen difficulty level.

BioWare isn't "messing things up," by merely attempting to change combat. Jump Jets and strict ammo management could easily fit into the existing game mechanics without harming the game. I meant to imply that there is an inherent risk to implementing more restrictions on the player. Done well, these restrictions can make the game more engaging, but done poorly and we just have another annoying restriction.

 

Ammo management doesn't create overly complex combat. Sure, throw too many mechanics in the same game and the result can get confusing, but as mechanics go, ammo management isn't that complex. Its very presence isn't going to scare away casuals any more than it does in Halo or DOOM. Honestly, have you ever heard a gamer say "I don't know... that ammo system looks tough. I don't think I want to play this anymore."

[SKAR]

Greetings folks.

I had a blast playing Overwatch open beta that ended a few days ago.

However the one thing that stood out to me in Overwatch was how Blizzard managed to make a good first person shooter game with a diverse set of weapons that did not involve ammunition scavenging.

In Overwatch, weapons had unlimited ammunition but they still need to be reloaded after being fired a couple of times. If we could implement this system in a Mass Effect game, that means we can have a game without having ammunition boxes.

What do you think about this ?

sounds interesting. Hmm.

[Killroy]

Okay I don't get it, I didn't play Overwatch. Isn't the point of reloading is to load the gun with something? It seems like a wasted animation and doesn't make sense. Why reload if you have nothing to reload the weapon with?

When you reload you can't attack or defend yourself. You're loading your weapon, you just don't run out of reloads.
 

In ME2 and 3 there was technically unlimited ammo, but you had to reload to switch out thermal clips to avoid overheating of the weapon. I like the thermal clip system and I hope they stick with it because it works well within the lore. Maybe they could revamp it a little. But reloading for no reason doesn't really sound interesting. I'd rather EAware reuse ME1 overheating mechanic.

...uhhhh, thermal clips didn't and don't make any sense in the lore. That was one of the major problems with them, and the LotSB DLC even touched on that.

[Arcian]

...uhhhh, thermal clips didn't and don't make any sense in the lore. That was one of the major problems with them, and the LotSB DLC even touched on that.

Not to mention that whole scene with Conrad in ME3.

[Addictress]

You misunderstand, Overwatch has infinite ammo in the sense that you run out of ammo and need to reload, but will never run out of new clips.

Yeah I can't wait to see how they explain Andromeda being littered with heat sinks.

No, I thought heat sink was the term for the cool-down thingy from ME1

[RoboticWater]

No, I thought heat sink was the term for the cool-down thingy from ME1

I think Arcian was responding to your first sentence, not your second. Technically, thermal clips are just replaceable heat sinks.

 

ME1's weapons had a single heat sink that cooled over time while ME2-3's weapons had numerous heat sinks that didn't cool down on their own and needed to be replaced. 

[Draining Dragon]

I think Arcian was responding to your first sentence, not your second. Technically, thermal clips are just replaceable heat sinks.
 
ME1's weapons had a single heat sink that cooled over time while ME2-3's weapons had numerous heat sinks that didn't cool down on their own and needed to be replaced.

Indeed.

The Shepard VI refers to thermal clips as "detachable heat sinks."

[Element Zero]

I would really like a similar mechanic for Mass Effect. I was never a fan of thermal clips, nor the forced attempt at an in-game explanation for a purely gameplay decision. The thermal clips were added to make ME2 play more like traditional shooters, and thus make it more widely appealing. Maybe this change (and others) worked as intended, since ME is now a widely recognized AAA IP.

Now, real clips make zero sense, in-game. They really didn't make any sense during the Reaper War, either. Heading into galactic war during which supply lines are nearly guaranteed to be severed (that's the Reaper MO), why eliminate the reliable, intrinsic heat sinks? In ME2 and ME3, the galaxy can at least plead ignorance, since hardly anyone believed war was coming. Fast forward to Andromeda-- why wouldn't the more reliable, intrinsic heat sink be the model with which you move forward? Is the vastness of Andromeda going to be littered with thermal clips? Man, I hope not.

Overwatch shows an up-to-date, fun mechanic that would allow for the logic of ME1's intrinsic heat sinks, as well as the satisfaction some get from actually "reloading" a weapon, as with ME2 and ME3's thermal clip/ammo mechanic. Best of both worlds, in my opinion. I think this would be my preferred method, of the three approaches (ME1/ME2-3/Overwatch).

[KaiserShep]

I'd gladly dump thermal clips for unlimited ammo interrupted by reloading/cooldowns.

[RoboticWater]

I would really like a similar mechanic for Mass Effect. I was never a fan of thermal clips, nor the forced attempt at an in-game explanation for a purely gameplay decision. The thermal clips were added to make ME2 play more like traditional shooters, and thus make it more widely appealing. Maybe this change (and others) worked as intended, since ME is now a widely recognized AAA IP.

That's a gross oversimplification.

 

For one thing, thermal clips were not added just "to make ME2 play more like a traditional shooter." Mass Effect 2 wan't designed by a marketing department. The clips were added to speed up combat as well as potentially encourage all the things I mentioned earlier. Had BioWare committed to the mechanic, thermal clips could have added another vector of depth to the combat.

 

Second, there's a reason more traditional mechanics are more appealing: they're fun. BioWare replaced a clunky mechanic with a better one. That's good game development. Yes, there were probably ways to achieve more lore-friendly ammo mechanics, but BioWare's decision to have an ammo mechanic doesn't make them sellouts.

 

Overwatch shows an up-to-date, fun mechanic that would allow for the logic of ME1's intrinsic heat sinks, as well as the satisfaction some get from actually "reloading" a weapon, as with ME2 and ME3's thermal clip/ammo mechanic. Best of both worlds, in my opinion. I think this would be my preferred method, of the three approaches (ME1/ME2-3/Overwatch).

Overwatch doesn't show that at all. The mechanics of a multiplayer arena shooter don't automatically translate to an RPG/TPS. These two genres have completely different design objectives. You don't need to have ammo reserves in Overwatch because your average life span wouldn't be long enough to burn through all those stores anyway. There's no reason to encourage weapon swapping because you can't actually swap weapons (save for certain characters with specific powers), nor is there any reason to encourage exploration because you fight in small arenas and have a singular objective. Power usage is encouraged because there's no way you'll survive on bullets alone.

 

Mass Effect, however, could have extended campaigns through enemy territory. Ammo scarcity, though somewhat out of place in lore, makes perfect sense within the game mechanics.

 

I suppose Overwatch could stand as proof that not all shooters need ammo, but that was never in question. Good game designers don't haphazardly grab mechanics from other games just because they work in that specific environment. They must consider what design objectives that mechanic fulfills in the other game and determine how well those objectives fit into their own game.

 

I suppose Overwatch stands as proof that not all shooters need ammo, but that was never in question. 

[Element Zero]

I never called BioWare sellouts. In no way was that the tone of my post. I'm surprised that's what you got out of it. I just found the in-game explanation unconvincing. It was just one of things one had to accept, even if it wasn't ideal. Mechanically, thermal clips definitely play more smoothly than ME's weapons. (My gripe was primarily with lore, which I feel should be given a lot of consideration in an RPG like ME.) As you say, though, clips could've been handled better. I think now is the time to improve that mechanic.


As to Overwatch, I haven't played it, nor will I. It's not my thing. I am not failing to grasp your mechanical arguments concerning game balance, ammo needs, etc... The solution I said I'd like: infinite ammo with an intrinsic heat sink that must be vented (basically a reload feature), would not be game breaking. It would make sense in terms of in-game logic, and would be a nice nod toward ME lore. It would also remove those ridiculous fields of dropped clips and omnipresent ammo crates from the game. I think they will seem very out of place in Andromeda.

I don't feel that it's too big a stretch to call a system like this a natural evolution of many things we've already had: ME's clunky weapons, ME2-3's clips, and ME3's M7 Lancer and Prothean Plasma Rifle.

I'll be fine if clips remain in the game. I just think they're silly and unnecessary.

EDIT: edited for clarity

[Draining Dragon]

If we're looking at Overwatch for ideas that would translate well into MEA, I would say that giving MP characters in MEA actual personalities and backstories could be fun. Inquisition tried something like that, but it wasn't done very well. ME3 just had generic archetypes rather than defined characters.