891 réponses à ce sujet

[Elhanan]

The claim was that the Predator is useless though, not that you prefer weapons with a higher damage per shot. It would be more accurate to say that the Predator just isn't your style of weapon. Kind of like how I don't care for the Talon in ME3 MP despite it easily being one of the best weapons in the game.
 
All the games had the stupid Paragon/Renegade thing. ME1 made it even worse by forcing you to spend skill points on top of the fact that how many ranks you could get in Charm/Intimidate was dependent on how full your Paragon/Renegade meters were. It's one of the things I think needs an overhaul in ME:A.
 
Playing through on Insanity I never once had to clip hunt, not even on caster classes. If you're using the Sylvius approach to combat then you shouldn't ever be missing either in ME2, which means that your accuracy should be surpassing even my own.
 
Most RPGs have picking up litter after battles. In this case it's looting the spare ammo rather than looting the corpses for money/items. I never found it particularly exciting to go through half a dozen corpses all containing a few gold, some leather armour, and a longsword in Baldur's Gate either just to get the gold.

Agreed; the Predator is useless to me. It is a pop gun to be used a last resort. The clip hunts were mostly done on my first Infiltrator campaign; a Soldier based class where ammo is more important. As I have mentioned, Powers are so much better than weapon choices, at least early in the game.

And it is not a matter of looting, as I am quite used to that. It is more like picking up litter; finding good clips scattered amongst the grounds of spent ones. In the meantime, the sense of urgency is lost.

[UpUpAway]

No; one had cooldowns due to thermal locking in ME1. That is accepted in the lore, eliminated in ME2, and partially utilized again in ME3. Sci-Fi explanation; not unlimited firepower.

And I did not go back to police a battle; stayed in the one I just had to gather clips. I often could not go back do to artificial barriers. In the meantime, the feeling of urgency is lost completely because one had to pick up litter. Tedium.

 

Oh please, by the time one got to Level 50 and bought some Spectre Gear, it was getting virtually impossible to overheat the weapons... so lore or not, it became a very pointless, academic piece of gameplay.  The only time an overheat played a role near the endgame was if you got sabotaged by an NPC.  (Also, if you had any skill at all, you could always "feather" the rate of fire to infinitely prevent an overheat in any weapon in the game.)  You had to go back to "pick up litter" in ME1 as well (in the form of frequently locked crates with guns, mods, and weapons).  Walking over a little clip on the ground is far less "immersion breaking" than opening a crate, and putting the contents of that crate into your inventory or converting it to omni-gel, etc.)  The point is that you don't have to go back to collect ammo in ME2 and ME3 (regardless of whether you've been blocked from behind or not).  Just go forward, down a few enemies using powers and, more often than not, more ammo will drop in front of you.  Regardless, since go back for ammo is NEVER your only option... the developer is not forcing your gameplay... if you do go back for ammo, you're choosing to do that.  If it breaks your immersion... just don't do it.  Move forward, kill more enemies, and find the ammo in front of you.

[Cyonan]

As mentioned, I was using a sniper rifle almost exclusively.

Amd every time I needed to collect any ammo at all, it made me angry, because the lore behind the ammo didn't make any sense.

 

That is your fault. It was your choice to try to use nothing but the sniper rifle.

 

Even then if you're playing on easier difficulties and headshotting with every hit, you still shouldn't have ammo problems for the bulk of the game. You also should be headshotting with every hit, because you "can't miss unless you choose to".

 

I maintain that anybody who says thermal clips break lore doesn't actually understand the lore behind weapons in Mass Effect. You can dislike that it was essentially ammo and that it was included to make the game feel more like a shooter, but it's not actually lore breaking.

 

Except you could. I used 2 archers for basically all if BG, and to do that without running out of arrows I devoted nearly all of the inventory on all 6 characters to carrying arrows for just 2 guys. I carried a bare minimum of other gear to maximize my space for arrows.

ME2 doesn't let us stock up and carry extra. We're limited to what they think will make the gameplay better. I say no. I say the player should get more control over his experience.

 

I said crossbow, not bow. Baldur's Gate saturates you with arrows, but bolts are considerably more rare to find.

 

Even stocking up on extra there's a chance I'll run out going through something like Durlag's Tower, unless I want to keep running back to the merchant.

 

Actually even stocking up on extras, I kept having to switch melee weapons in the early game on my Paladin in my last run because my Bastard Swords kept breaking. At least until I got improved weapons that don't break.

[capn233]

As much as people are praising ME1 RPG aspects in this thread, it was a terrible shooter. ME3 is easily the best game in that regard. It's not even a competition. ME1 and 2 both had weak gunplay in the action combat.

 

What actually makes ME3 superior for gunplay?  The guns work nearly exactly the same except that there is no class distinction.  Is it just the higher number of weapons?  Overall the weapon balance is a lot worse.  ME2 Mattock on Soldier is supplanted by Arc Pistol, Wraith, Acolyte, Harrier on everyone for instance.

 

Essentially combat mechanics wise only two things really happened to weapons:  protection multipliers largely extinct and range modifiers died.  Both contributed to the lack of distinction between weapon classes.  It seems like the only reason they are even divided into weapon classes is just for the sake of selling packs in MP.

 

The PRS system obviously didn't work to balance the change in class design.  There is essentially no point to Soldier in SP of ME3 when you can run around gibbing everything with the Crusader on an Adept and still have Throw cooldown in a couple seconds.  And that isn't even a top drawer class, Vanguard and Infiltrator scoff at puny Adept and the other classes.

 

Shieldgate and armor damage reduction was nominally supposed to at least divide weapons between low rate of fire and high rate of fire.  The problem was that for this to work nearly all high rate of fire weapons would need low damage per shot, and all low rate of fire would need high damage per shot.  This didn't happen at all, just as weapon damage vs encumbrance didn't happen, so these two things didn't accomplish anything except making the god tier guns even further removed from the trash tier weapons (which account for nearly half of the guns).

[Cyonan]

Agreed; the Predator is useless to me. It is a pop gun to be used a last resort. The clip hunts were mostly done on my first Infiltrator campaign; a Soldier based class where ammo is more important. As I have mentioned, Powers are so much better than weapon choices, at least early in the game.

And it is not a matter of looting, as I am quite used to that. It is more like picking up litter; finding good clips scattered amongst the grounds of spent ones. In the meantime, the sense of urgency is lost.

 

Even in the early game the best thing is always a combination of powers and guns, even if you're an Adept or Engineer.

 

Losing the sense of urgency can be bad, but you can't argue that it's "not a matter of looting" because looting does the exact same thing.

[Elhanan]

Oh please, by the time one got to Level 50 and bought some Spectre Gear, it was getting virtually impossible to overheat the weapons... so lore or not, it became a very pointless, academic piece of gameplay.  The only time an overheat played a role near the endgame was if you got sabotaged by an NPC.  You had to go back to "pick up litter" in ME1 as well (in the form of frequently locked crates with guns, mods, and weapons).  Walking over a little clip on the ground is far less "immersion breaking" than opening a crate, and putting the contents of that crate into your inventory or converting it to omni-gel, etc.)  The point is that you don't have to go back to collect ammo in ME2 and ME3 (regardless of whether you've been blocked from behind or not).  Just go forward, down a few enemies using powers and, more often than not, more ammo will drop in front of you.  Regardless, since go back for ammo is NEVER your only option... the developer is not forcing your gameplay... if you do go back for ammo, you're choosing to do that.  If it breaks your immersion... just don't do it.  Move forward, kill more enemies, and find the ammo in front of you.

Not even virtually; had to use proper care not to overheat a Sniper Rifle with HE rnds. It took the use of mods, ammo, and patience; something snipers are known to have. The Player had the freedom to design the rifle as they wished, and could use the rifle if they wished.

In ME2, both choices were eliminated. And when the rifle could be gained through acquiring Reaper tech, time is then spent looking for ammo, switching to inferior weaponry that use the same ammo, or explore other options.

[Cyonan]

What actually makes ME3 superior for gunplay?  The guns work nearly exactly the same except that there is no class distinction.  Is it just the higher number of weapons?  Overall the weapon balance is a lot worse.  ME2 Mattock on Soldier is supplanted by Arc Pistol, Wraith, Acolyte, Harrier on everyone for instance.

 

Essentially combat mechanics wise only two things really happened to weapons:  protection multipliers largely extinct and range modifiers died.  Both contributed to the lack of distinction between weapon classes.  It seems like the only reason they are even divided into weapon classes is just for the sake of selling packs in MP.

 

The PRS system obviously didn't work to balance the change in class design.  There is essentially no point to Soldier in SP of ME3 when you can run around gibbing everything with the Crusader on an Adept and still have Throw cooldown in a couple seconds.  And that isn't even a top drawer class, Vanguard and Infiltrator scoff at the other classes.

 

Shieldgate and armor damage reduction was nominally supposed to at least divide weapons between low rate of fire and high rate of fire.  The problem was that for this to work nearly all high rate of fire weapons would need low damage per shot, and all low rate of fire would need high damage per shot.  This didn't happen at all, just as weapon damage vs encumbrance didn't happen, so these two things didn't accomplish anything except making the god tier guns even further removed from the trash tier weapons (which account for nearly half of the guns).

 

I think it actually comes down to Shep in those games. The actual guns function basically the same and while the increased variety is welcome in ME3, that's not part of the core fundamental gameplay mechanics.

 

but ME2 feels very sluggish in combat. Shep doesn't move all that fast, can't dodge, and has to spent large amounts of time behind cover waiting for shields on higher difficulties because of the sheer damage output of enemies.

 

While the balance of ME2 was better between weapons if we ignore the weapon DLC packs, I think the core mechanics of gameplay were far better in ME3 because they felt more fluid. Maybe less realistic, but still felt better overall as far as gameplay is concerned.

 

The best thing would probably be ME3's core gameplay with ME2's overall balance of weapons.

[Elhanan]

Even in the early game the best thing is always a combination of powers and guns, even if you're an Adept or Engineer.
 
Losing the sense of urgency can be bad, but you can't argue that it's "not a matter of looting" because looting does the exact same thing.

Looting yields unknown resources and treasure; policing the field for needed ammo is tedious. The former is a Player option; the latter is an annoying mechanic.

[Cyonan]

Looting yields unknown resources and treasure; policing the field for needed ammo is tedious. The former is a Player option; the latter is an annoying mechanic.

 

Ammo is a resource, though.

 

but that doesn't change the fact that during periods of urgency in ME1 I can stop to go play frogger with the loot crates. This also assumes that out of a room full of crates, Shep magically knows which one has loot useful to the squad.

 

I understand that you don't care for it, but this isn't a complain I think we should be directing at Mass Effect 2 and 3 alone.

[nfi42]

I think it actually comes down to Shep in those games. The actual guns function basically the same and while the increased variety is welcome in ME3, that's not part of the core fundamental gameplay mechanics.

 

but ME2 feels very sluggish in combat. Shep doesn't move all that fast, can't dodge, and has to spent large amounts of time behind cover waiting for shields on higher difficulties because of the sheer damage output of enemies.

 

While the balance of ME2 was better between weapons if we ignore the weapon DLC packs, I think the core mechanics of gameplay were far better in ME3 because they felt more fluid. Maybe less realistic, but still felt better overall as far as gameplay is concerned.

 

The best thing would probably be ME3's core gameplay with ME2's overall balance of weapons.

 

And we don't want the one button does everything.

[Cyonan]

And we don't want the one button does everything.

 

The omni-button should be thrown out the airlock.

[capn233]

I think it actually comes down to Shep in those games. The actual guns function basically the same and while the increased variety is welcome in ME3, that's not part of the core fundamental gameplay mechanics.

 

but ME2 feels very sluggish in combat. Shep doesn't move all that fast, can't dodge, and has to spent large amounts of time behind cover waiting for shields on higher difficulties because of the sheer damage output of enemies.

 

While the balance of ME2 was better between weapons if we ignore the weapon DLC packs, I think the core mechanics of gameplay were far better in ME3 because they felt more fluid. Maybe less realistic, but still felt better overall as far as gameplay is concerned.

 

The best thing would probably be ME3's core gameplay with ME2's overall balance of weapons.

 

Ah, well I agree with regards to movement change between ME2 and ME3.  That helped make the game feel like it was faster paced, even though it was pretty similar in a lot of ways.

 

I think even with ME2's weapon packs ME3 weapon balance is still worse.  Pay to win essentially existed in both games, but seems like disparity between top tier and bottom tier was wider in ME3.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As much as people are praising ME1 RPG aspects in this thread, it was a terrible shooter. ME3 is easily the best game in that regard. It's not even a competition. ME1 and 2 both had weak gunplay in the action combat.

I wouldn't know. I don't play shooters.

[Cyonan]

Ah, well I agree with regards to movement change between ME2 and ME3.  That helped make the game feel like it was faster paced, even though it was pretty similar in a lot of ways.

 

I think even with ME2's weapon packs ME3 weapon balance is still worse.  Pay to win essentially existed in both games, but seems like disparity between top tier and bottom tier was wider in ME3.

 

Well if we're including weapon pack we'd have to include them for ME3 which means including the abominations that were the Harrier and Reegar Carbine.

 

Then again I think even if we included the ME2 pack and not ME3 packs, ME2 still has better balance.

 

I think they thought the weight system would be a lot more effective than it actually was.

[capn233]

I think they thought the weight system would be a lot more effective than it actually was.

 

Right.  This is was supposed to be the new weapon restriction, largely.  Shieldgate / armor DR were supposed to be the replacement for multipliers, more or less.  In a vacuum the mechanic might seem like a valid replacement, but it introduces a ton more complexity to balance and without a coherent plan it ends up being worse.

 

One of the main problems was calling it encumbrance / weight in the first place.  Always ran into resistance from factions saying that it wouldn't make sense for a pistol to be heavy, even if it did more damage than an LMG.  Maybe if they just called it "energy requirement" there would have been less resistance to actually fixing them.

[Cyonan]

Right.  This is was supposed to be the new weapon restriction, largely.  Shieldgate / armor DR were supposed to be the replacement for multipliers, more or less.  In a vacuum the mechanic might seem like a valid replacement, but it introduces a ton more complexity to balance and without a coherent plan it ends up being worse.

 

One of the main problems was calling it encumbrance / weight in the first place.  Always ran into resistance from factions saying that it wouldn't make sense for a pistol to be heavy, even if it did more damage than an LMG.  Maybe if they just called it "energy requirement" there would have been less resistance to actually fixing them.

 

I think they should go back to the multipliers. All that ME3 armour really did was make anti-armour effects practically mandatory on rapid fire weapons. It's kind of hard to balance a static damage reduction per shot when you've got such a wide damage range, even if we're just looking at full auto weapons.

 

Changing the "weight" system to be called something else so we can make the high damage pistols and SMGs not be so stupidly light would be good. You could also try bringing back the weapon restrictions but give the player choice as to which weapon classes they want training in. Then you can let the Soldier get training in more weapons.

[Sylvius the Mad]

That is your fault. It was your choice to try to use nothing but the sniper rifle.

It was a character design that was supported in the previous game (sort of - I was being especially stubborn). The ammo mechanic punished sniper rifle usage.

Even then if you're playing on easier difficulties and headshotting with every hit, you still shouldn't have ammo problems for the bulk of the game. You also should be headshotting with every hit, because you "can't miss unless you choose to".

Except with the the sniper rifle, because you can't scope while paused (which is idiotic).

And that line of mine you quoted was always written from an in-character perspective. Shepard always hits what he aims at. Why he sometimes aims at nothing is a different question.

I maintain that anybody who says thermal clips break lore doesn't actually understand the lore behind weapons in Mass Effect. You can dislike that it was essentially ammo and that it was included to make the game feel more like a shooter, but it's not actually lore breaking.

athe explanation was that the disposable clips allowed higher DPS, but that's not true. It's no faster to kill similar enemies in ME2. A sniper rifle can one-shot the vast majority of enemies in ME1, no matter where you hit them. In ME2, non-headshots are rarely one-shot-kills.

I said crossbow, not bow. Baldur's Gate saturates you with arrows, but bolts are considerably more rare to find.

You don't need to find them. You stock up in town. Every character should be carrying at least 12 stacks of bolts. And since you only had one crossbowman, and crossbows have a slower rate of fire than bows, you go through ammo quite a bit slower.

Even stocking up on extra there's a chance I'll run out going through something like Durlag's Tower, unless I want to keep running back to the merchant.

The huge DLC dungeon, yes that's especially problematic. But the whole rest of the game shouldn't be a problem.

Actually even stocking up on extras, I kept having to switch melee weapons in the early game on my Paladin in my last run because my Bastard Swords kept breaking. At least until I got improved weapons that don't break.

I always wondered how much of a problem that was. I tended not to use melee weapons.

[Cyonan]

It was a character design that was supported in the previous game (sort of - I was being especially stubborn). The ammo mechanic punished sniper rifle usage.

 

They revamped the combat system because the first game had weak action combat. It happens.

 

Dragon Age also changed things and I lost my Arcane Warrior build. Knight-Enchanter isn't the same thing either.

 

The ammo mechanic didn't punish sniper rifle usage, it punished trying to use 1 weapon with poor ammo economy 100% of the time. Getting the player to switch up tactics isn't a bad thing.

 

Except with the the sniper rifle, because you can't scope while paused (which is idiotic).

 

Quick scoping is a thing in Mass Effect. It takes a fraction of a second to scope and shoot.

 

With using pause to track targets, you should be able to maintain at least about the same accuracy as me if not more even if you aren't good at shooters.

 

athe explanation was that the disposable clips allowed higher DPS, but that's not true. It's no faster to kill similar enemies in ME2. A sniper rifle can one-shot the vast majority of enemies in ME1, no matter where you hit them. In ME2, non-headshots are rarely one-shot-kills.

 

The lore explanation has nothing to do with DPS, because DPS is a player created stat. It was about being able to fire more shots without having to worry about overheating. The only reason we could fire so long without overheat in ME1 was because the Frictionless Materials mod wasn't balanced properly for gameplay mechanics.

 

Reloading a gun in ME2 takes less time than waiting for the gun to cooldown from overheat in ME1.

 

I always wondered how much of a problem that was. I tended not to use melee weapons.

 

I could sometimes go through all 3 weapon slots in a single combat and break all of them.

 

It's actually worse than bolts or arrows, because the weapons cost me a lot more than 4 gold per stack.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They revamped the combat system because the first game had weak action combat. It happens.

Dragon Age also changed things and I lost my Arcane Warrior build. Knight-Enchanter isn't the same thing either.

At least Dragon Age explained from the start why the Arcane Warrior was rare. The knowledge was lost.

Quick scoping is a thing in Mass Effect. It takes a fraction of a second to scope and shoot.

With using pause to track targets, you should be able to maintain at least about the same accuracy as me if not more even if you aren't good at shooters.

Apparently not.

The lore explanation has nothing to do with DPS, because DPS is a player created stat.

It's a measurement of in-game reality.

It was about being able to fire more shots without having to worry about overheating. The only reason we could fire so long without overheat in ME1 was because the Frictionless Materials mod wasn't balanced properly for gameplay mechanics.

I was a sniper. I only ever fired one shot at a time, with plenty if time to cool down in-between. Frictionless materials was a waste of a mod slot.

But suddenly in ME2, snipers needed clips, which purported to fix a problem they didn't have.

Reloading a gun in ME2 takes less time than waiting for the gun to cooldown from overheat in ME1.

Don't overheat them. Be judicious with your fire.

I could sometimes go through all 3 weapon slots in a single combat and break all of them.

3 weapon slots? What? There was only one weapon slot, wasn't there? And then a bunch of general inventory.

[Cyonan]

At least Dragon Age explained from the start why the Arcane Warrior was rare. The knowledge was lost.

 

Mass Effect also explained why guns switched over to a thermal clip system. That you didn't like isn't really relevant.

 

It's a measurement of in-game reality.
I was a sniper. I only ever fired one shot at a time, with plenty if time to cool down in-between. Frictionless materials was a waste of a mod slot.

But suddenly in ME2, snipers needed clips, which purported to fix a problem they didn't have.

Don't overheat them. Be judicious with your fire.

 

Unless you're using Frictionless Materials then ME2 still lets you get more shots off than waiting for cooldown in ME1 from "almost but not quite overheat".

 

Even for sniper rifles like the Mantis that were single shots this was the case. You just didn't utilize the advantage of that in ME2.

 

For snipers in ME1 frictionless materials will greatly reduce the time between shots, so it's not a waste of a mod slot. You also get a bit of bonus damage as well.

 

3 weapon slots? What? There was only one weapon slot, wasn't there? And then a bunch of general inventory.

 

It was the weapon quick slots, which actually varies in how many you get based on class. Paladins get 3 if I remember right, which is what my frontline fighting character was for that run.

 

At one point I was even carrying like 10 Bastard Swords specifically for my Paladin because they kept breaking. I ended up only selling 1 of them since I had finally got a +1 Bastard Sword, which +1 and magic weapons can't break.

[capn233]

I don't really recall snipers routinely one shotting enemies in ME1 unless you used assassinate or possibly ran double rail extension VII in specific phases of the game. In any case, most classes couldn't get much rate of fire on snipers since they couldn't get the big heart dissipation bonus infiltrator could.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Mass Effect also explained why guns switched over to a thermal clip system. That you didn't like isn't really relevant.

The explanation was the users could be more effective. But that wasn't true with sniper rifles. Sniper rifles in ME1 were more deadly on a per-shot basis than sniper rifles in ME2. And they never ran out of clips.

Unless you're using Frictionless Materials then ME2 still lets you get more shots off than waiting for cooldown in ME1 from "almost but not quite overheat".

Until you run out of clips, and then your weapon is useless.

Even for sniper rifles like the Mantis that were single shots this was the case. You just didn't utilize the advantage of that in ME2.

I don't need more shots. I need one. I kill one enemy, and then set up the shot for the next. There's no repeated firing.

For snipers in ME1 frictionless materials will greatly reduce the time between shots, so it's not a waste of a mod slot. You also get a bit of bonus damage as well.

What's the rush?

It was the weapon quick slots, which actually varies in how many you get based on class. Paladins get 3 if I remember right, which is what my frontline fighting character was for that run.

That's right. I remember now. I don't think I regularly used any classes that had more than 2 (and usually just 1), so I just had a ranged weapon and a melee weapon there.

At one point I was even carrying like 10 Bastard Swords specifically for my Paladin because they kept breaking. I ended up only selling 1 of them since I had finally got a +1 Bastard Sword, which +1 and magic weapons can't break.

Given the paucity of magical bastard swords in the game, why didn't you switch to a different long blade? The proficiency covered the whole category. If you're telling me to switch to a different weapon in ME2, why didn't you switch to a different weapon in BG?

[Cyonan]

The explanation was the users could be more effective. But that wasn't true with sniper rifles. Sniper rifles in ME1 were more deadly on a per-shot basis than sniper rifles in ME2. And they never ran out of clips.

 

As Capn said, Sniper Rifles didn't really OHK most targets in ME1. At least, not on the higher difficulties they didn't unless you were using Assassinate or 2x Rail Extension(which would increase chance of overheating after 1 shot).

 

On top of that, you were never fighting just one target. A sniper in ME2 can drop multiple targets faster than in ME1.

 

The user could be more effective. You simply chose not to take advantage of the things that would make you more effective that thermal clips allowed for.

 

Until you run out of clips, and then your weapon is useless.

 

You would still be able to fire more rapidly, and we've already been over the whole "you shouldn't have had ammo issues in ME2" thing.

 

I don't need more shots. I need one. I kill one enemy, and then set up the shot for the next. There's no repeated firing.

 

Unless you only ever fight 1 enemy, you need more shots. Maybe not against a single target, but you still need more shots.

 

With pause to aim, there should be minimal tracking time between targets for you even without being able to scope during pause.

 

What's the rush?

 

Less time between shots means more kills, which means less enemies alive to fire back at me.

 

Enemies on Insanity in ME2 can deal a lot of damage very quickly.

 

Given the paucity of magical bastard swords in the game, why didn't you switch to a different long blade? The proficiency covered the whole category. If you're telling me to switch to a different weapon in ME2, why didn't you switch to a different weapon in BG?

 

Oh I did have Long Swords on me as well, not that they fared any better than the Bastard Swords. Pretty much any basic sword I find breaks on a regular basis in BG, but at least the Long Swords were much more common to find on enemies. I just liked Bastard Swords more so I would go out of my way more to ensure I had a good supply of them on hand.

 

If I remember right you can also buy a Bastard Sword +1 in one of the towns, which also wont ever break. I don't remember how costly it is, though.

 

I was just making a point, hence why my original question was "Should I blame BioWare because Baldur's Gate made me switch weapons?". I'm not actually bothered by it, just as I'm not bothered by switching weapons in Mass Effect 2.

 

Most of my characters in pen and paper RPGs or video games will carry multiple weapons anyway for the whole "right tool for the right job" purposes. My current character in my PnP game started off with something like 6 different weapons on her.

[Sylvius the Mad]

As Capn said, Sniper Rifles didn't really OHK most targets in ME1. At least, not on the higher difficulties they didn't unless you were using Assassinate or 2x Rail Extension(which would increase chance of overheating after 1 shot).

On top of that, you were never fighting just one target. A sniper in ME2 can drop multiple targets faster than in ME1.

At extreme range, they're not shooting back.

But that's a level design issue. ME2 always had us fighting in these enclosed spaces with convenient waist-high cover. ME1 gave us these wide open spaces. There, I'd find an angle on the target, take him out (1 shot), and then move to a different location to find an angle on my next target.

The user could be more effective. You simply chose not to take advantage of the things that would make you more effective that thermal clips allowed for.

Not one-shotting opponents is more effective than one-shotting them?

You would still be able to fire more rapidly, and we've already been over the whole "you shouldn't have had ammo issues in ME2" thing.

If we shouldn't have issues, why bother having the mechanic at all?

Unless you only ever fight 1 enemy, you need more shots. Maybe not against a single target, but you still need more shots.

With pause to aim, there should be minimal tracking time between targets for you even without being able to scope during pause.

Waiting for them to come out from behind cover.

This actually describes most of my ME3 combat. I spent most of my time waiting for enemies to come out from behind cover.

Less time between shots means more kills, which means less enemies alive to fire back at me.

Enemies on Insanity in ME2 can deal a lot of damage very quickly.

I don't play on Insanity, and I don't see why I ever would.

I play on the default difficulty, unless there's another more symmetrical setting. In all 3 ME games I played on the default setting. In DAO and DAI I played on Hard. In DA2 I played on a modded setting.

[Cyonan]

At extreme range, they're not shooting back.

But that's a level design issue. ME2 always had us fighting in these enclosed spaces with convenient waist-high cover. ME1 gave us these wide open spaces. There, I'd find an angle on the target, take him out (1 shot), and then move to a different location to find an angle on my next target.

 

Enemy snipers should be shooting back at extreme range. Not every encounter also allowed for extreme ranges.

 

Not one-shotting opponents is more effective than one-shotting them?

 

See my previous post: Sniper rifles weren't great at one shotting on the higher difficulties of ME1.

 

This is game balance, not lore. It's stupid to let your lore hamstring your game mechanics like that.

 

Also on the lower difficulties of ME2 I can still one shot enemies with a single headshot from the Mantis. Not stuff like the giant mechs obviously, but most trash mob level mercs.

 

If we shouldn't have issues, why bother having the mechanic at all?

 

It's a resource management thing. If you manage your resource well, you wont have issues.

 

Waiting for them to come out from behind cover.

This actually describes most of my ME3 combat. I spent most of my time waiting for enemies to come out from behind cover.

 

Most enemies don't actually hide 100% of their body behind cover, so you can still headshot them while they sit there.

 

Alternatively in Mass Effect 3, use penetration which lets you shoot through the cover.

 

I don't play on Insanity, and I don't see why I ever would.

I play on the default difficulty, unless there's another more symmetrical setting. In all 3 ME games I played on the default setting. In DAO and DAI I played on Hard. In DA2 I played on a modded setting.

 

You not playing Insanity doesn't negate the fact that less enemies means less things shooting at you.

 

but you asked why I appeared to be in a hurry to kill things. It's because I play on a difficulty where enemies can drop you as quickly as you can drop them.

 

I would argue the higher difficulties are probably the most symmetrical specifically because of that. Especially ME3 where even Insanity is kind of a joke.