891 réponses à ce sujet

[Sylvius the Mad]

Enemy snipers should be shooting back at extreme range.

In ME1 I could just retreat behind cover. The enemies wouldn't move to pursue.

Not every encounter also allowed for extreme ranges.

The fun ones did.

Can you tell I just don't like shooters?

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

Better than ME2. ME2 required headshots.

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

Then design it the other way around. Write your lore around your game mechanics.

The game mechanics describe the physical realities of the game world. They are the facts that inform the characters' decisions.

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.

Again with the headshots. ME1 sniper rifles could score one-shot kills to the leg. Just like a real sniper rifle.

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

That would be fine if it didn't force unfun combat gameplay on me.

I like resource management. I don't like close quarters combat.

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

It's easier if I wait for them, though. There's less risk I'll miss if I can see more them.

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

Luckily, in ME3 I didn't have to shoot things at ahort range. There I just used Powers.

I'm talking about ME2 because ME2 is the game with the terrible combat, particularly for someone who wants to use a sniper rifle.

[capn233]

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

Yeah really it isn't practical to outrange them. Even on side missions that are nominally as open as possible, the terrain was often such that you couldn't get line of sight on them from extreme distances anyway. Or you had to go into a prefab or mine to fight the bulk of whatever faction on said world.

Better than ME2. ME2 required headshots.

On the other hand if ME1 actually had headshot multipliers it would have been easier to get one-shots with the rifles.

[straykat]

Whatever ME2 was, I'd be happy with. It was more action oriented, but still had a good dialogue element. I wouldn't mind more expansive worlds though... more NPCs, more NPC ai, more funny side characters. I think they just couldn't do it before because the PS3/360 cpu sucked. It's the same case for Elder Scrolls.

[Cyonan]

Better than ME2. ME2 required headshots.

 

This is because ME1 actually didn't have headshots. You always dealt the same amount of damage to the enemy regardless of where you hit them.

 

New mechanics to improve the shooter aspect meant needing new game balance to reflect that. Sniper rifles are supposed to reward people who are good at aiming for critical hits. In most cases, this means headshots.

 

Then design it the other way around. Write your lore around your game mechanics.

The game mechanics describe the physical realities of the game world. They are the facts that inform the characters' decisions.

 

The mechanics changed between games, though. The lore was already written for the previous game, but your experience on normal difficulty isn't any more canon in the lore than mine was on insanity.

 

So there wasn't any lore on how many sniper rifle shots the average person can take.

 

That would be fine if it didn't force unfun combat gameplay on me.

I like resource management. I don't like close quarters combat.

 

Fun is subjective.

 

A lot of people like close combat and probably didn't enjoy having to approach bases in ME1 under sniper fire with their shotguns out.

 

Luckily, in ME3 I didn't have to shoot things at ahort range. There I just used Powers.

I'm talking about ME2 because ME2 is the game with the terrible combat, particularly for someone who wants to use a sniper rifle.

 

As somebody who likes sniper rifles more than any other weapon class in games, I can't say as I agree that ME2 had terrible sniper combat.

 

What it did seem to have was a pause to aim system not terribly well supported.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Yeah really it isn't practical to outrange them. Even on side missions that are nominally as open as possible, the terrain was often such that you couldn't get line of sight on them from extreme distances anyway. Or you had to go into a prefab or mine to fight the bulk of whatever faction on said world.

There were usually a bunch of sentries outside those facilities, particularly if they were geth facilities (which were the side quests for which we had the most RP justification). Sniping those geth from atop the surrounding hills was trivial. And we could one-shot them anywhere in their bodies.

On the other hand if ME1 actually had headshot multipliers it would have been easier to get one-shots with the rifles.

Vastly.

[Sylvius the Mad]

This is because ME1 actually didn't have headshots. You always dealt the same amount of damage to the enemy regardless of where you hit them.

New mechanics to improve the shooter aspect meant needing new game balance to reflect that. Sniper rifles are supposed to reward people who are good at aiming for critical hits. In most cases, this means headshots.

But they didn't reward those people. They punished everyone else.

Either they needed to have an actual bonus for headshots relative to the ME1 performance, or they needed a different lore explanation for the thermal clips.

The mechanics changed between games, though. The lore was already written for the previous game, but your experience on normal difficulty isn't any more canon in the lore than mine was on insanity.

The relevant lore was that the weapons didn't need thermal clips. They mechanics were that the weapons were lethal to a certain degree.

Whatever the gameplay in the second game, the lore needs to be consistent with both, and it wasn't.

As for difficulty, I suggest that we compare Insanity to Insanity and Normal to Normal.

So there wasn't any lore on how many sniper rifle shots the average person can take.

But there were mechanics.

Fun is subjective.

Yes, which is why all appeals to fun are pointless.

A lot of people like close combat and probably didn't enjoy having to approach bases in ME1 under sniper fire with their shotguns out.

That's what the Mako was for.

As somebody who likes sniper rifles more than any other weapon class in games, I can't say as I agree that ME2 had terrible sniper combat.

What it did seem to have was a pause to aim system not terribly well supported.

That's certainly true.

[straykat]

Insanity was definitely harder in ME1... just for the rocket drones. Almost everything else is roughly the same, albeit some gameplay differences.

[capn233]

There were usually a bunch of sentries outside those facilities, particularly if they were geth facilities (which were the side quests for which we had the most RP justification). Sniping those geth from atop the surrounding hills was trivial. And we could one-shot them anywhere in their bodies.

Vastly.

 

I would agree that UNC Geth Incursions is the sidequest arc that makes the most sense (with possibly the Kahoku-Cerberus arc next)...

 

There were a handful of guys outside whatever prefab, bunker or mine on a lot of missions and typically a lot more inside.

 

I don't know that this was always actually trivial since typically there were multiple snipers and on insanity at least (hardcore too IIRC) sniper shots are usually a death for Shep unless you have immunity up or have high DR armor on a class with barrier up.

 

While the loss of a few actual long range encounters was somewhat disappointing, there was more variety in actual sniper rifles and that does a lot to counterbalance the change in maps.

 

But they didn't reward those people. They punished everyone else.

Either they needed to have an actual bonus for headshots relative to the ME1 performance, or they needed a different lore explanation for the thermal clips.
The relevant lore was that the weapons didn't need thermal clips. They mechanics were that the weapons were lethal to a certain degree.
 

 

They weren't punishing anybody with headshot bonus.  You weren't killing as many people as rapidly with rifles in ME1... Infiltrator did a little better with weapon damage bonuses and heat bonuses, and Soldier had weapon damage bonuses... but both classes also have bonus to rifles in ME2 outside of headshot bonus.

 

Also hopefully this time to kill comparison isn't being made between a Mantis and a Spectre HMWSR X, that seems like it would be a bit unfair.  Widow would be an apt comparison.  There really isn't anything in ME1 comparable to Viper dps of course, would need an infiltrator with some sort of dual frictionless setup to sort of emulate it, at least the feel.

[Sylvius the Mad]

They weren't punishing anybody with headshot bonus. You weren't killing as many people as rapidly with rifles in ME1.

Without the headshot bonus? I suspect I was.

That's particularly true if we use the same class - the Engineer - in both games.

As for weapon comparisons, I suppose I'm considering only the rifles available in the core game - no DLC weapons.

[capn233]

Without the headshot bonus? I suspect I was.

That's particularly true if we use the same class - the Engineer - in both games.

As for weapon comparisons, I suppose I'm considering only the rifles available in the core game - no DLC weapons.

 

Hmmm...

 

Well I suppose comparing bodyshots only may make sense from some perspectives, but since the shooting mechanics are completely different between the two it is sort of gimping yourself as far as ME2 performance is concerned.

 

It would be sort of like failing to equip your mods on the rifle in ME1.  Not taking advantage of all the things the devs are giving you.

 

There is a chance Viper might still be able to pull this off though.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Hmmm...

 

Well I suppose comparing bodyshots only may make sense from some perspectives, but since the shooting mechanics are completely different between the two it is sort of gimping yourself as far as ME2 performance is concerned.

 

It would be sort of like failing to equip your mods on the rifle in ME1.  Not taking advantage of all the things the devs are giving you.

 

There is a chance Viper might still be able to pull this off though.

The question was whether the change constituted a bonus or a penalty.  I say a penalty because it made body shots less deadly.  Accessing the max damage in ME2 is more difficult than in ME1, and the max damage in ME2 is only higher when measured across multiple shots.  On a per-shot basis, the ME1 damage is still higher (relative to the total health of enemies), and is easier to achieve.

 

Making the ME2 design look like a bonus requires an incredibly steep filter on your analysis.

[Cyonan]

But they didn't reward those people. They punished everyone else.

Either they needed to have an actual bonus for headshots relative to the ME1 performance, or they needed a different lore explanation for the thermal.

 

Giving you normal damage for a body shot isn't a punishment. They nerfed sniper rifle base damage because of the headshots yeah, but getting a body shot in ME2 isn't a punishment on damage.

 

They needed to have a headshot bonus relative to you being able to 1 shot most units? How is that even a bonus?

 

The relevant lore was that the weapons didn't need thermal clips. They mechanics were that the weapons were lethal to a certain degree.

Whatever the gameplay in the second game, the lore needs to be consistent with both, and it wasn't.

As for difficulty, I suggest that we compare Insanity to Insanity and Normal to Normal.

 

That's letting lore hamstring your game mechanics, which as I said before I find to be stupid.

 

The sniper rifles were still lethal. If you want a lore excuse as to why you can't 1 shot with body shots anymore then maybe they got better armour, but the head is still vital enough to actually kill them.

 

But there were mechanics.

 

and the mechanics changed to reflect the direction they wanted to go in, which was better shooter mechanics.

 

That's what the Mako was for.

 

Not every encounter with an enemy sniper at longer ranges had the Mako available to you. Off the top of my head there's one on Therum where there is 2 enemy snipers at the top of the hill just after you're forced to ditch the Mako.

 

On top of that many enemy snipers were protected in towers still a good distance away from the nearest cover that the Mako could drop you off at. I still had to run through highly lethal sniper fire to get anywhere close to the sniper towers.

 

I figured I wasn't actually killing anything with the Mako, since this is a discussion about sticking to a single weapon against the vast majority of enemies in the game =P

[capn233]

Ok I loaded up an ME1 save, an old ruthless adept had SR training (not an engineer but it doesn't matter SR wise).

 

Level 48 with HMWSR VII dual Rail VII.  Notably this overheats after a single shot with any ammo so shots are ~5s apart.

 

HE IX takes two shots* to kill a husk (UNC Colony of the Dead), with or without Advanced Assassinate (125% damage, 45s recharge).

 

Switching to Shredder VII takes two shots with Advanced Assassinate first, or three normal shots.

 

Swap out one Rail VII for Frictionless VII I can get off 3 shots before overheat.  The shots to kill per husk is the same as the other Shredder setup, so this is actually mildly better than max damage with this weapon, v this enemy.

 

In any case though, the "fast" setup is going to take around 2 seconds per husk for firing time and 5 seconds for cooldown.  For all normal shots that is a cycle time per enemy of 7s...  Mixing in Assassinate will make it a little lower, but Advanced Assassinate only comes around every 45s.

 

----

 

Level 55 HMWSR X dual Scram IX, Tungsten VII (Citadel) - overheats after 2 shots

 

Can one-shot Geth Trooper with Advanced Assassinate.  Otherwise 2 normal shots then overheat.  Will be three shots if you pause and geth hits shield boost.

 

HE X ammo - Can one-shot with Advanced Assassinate, otherwise two normal shots for Geth Trooper.

 

*HE IX or X has lower damage bonus than Tungsten or Shredder VII do against their respective enemies.  What was finishing the husks was actually the force component ragdolling them into things, which is how it happened to save a shot in that test.

[Sylvius the Mad]

Giving you normal damage for a body shot isn't a punishment. They nerfed sniper rifle base damage because of the headshots yeah, but getting a body shot in ME2 isn't a punishment on damage.

It demonstrably is. The same shot produces less damage in the second game. Nerfing one side in almost all circumstances outweighs rewarding the other under very limited circumstances.

Being a sniper in ME2 is much more challenging. That defeats the explanation provided for the clips.

They needed to have a headshot bonus relative to you being able to 1 shot most units? How is that even a bonus?

It's consistent with the lore. Less isn't more. More is more.

That's letting lore hamstring your game mechanics, which as I said before I find to be stupid.

Except the lore isn't immutable. They could have instead justified the clips by saying that the rapid heat output of the old designs caused newly discovered cellular damage to users, and to avoid that they switched to clips to contain that heat. Or something. Anything that made sense given the mechanics.

But the explanation they gave made none.

It took me 5 seconds to come up with that explanation. I'm sure their writers could have done even better.

and the mechanics changed to reflect the direction they wanted to go in, which was better shooter mechanics.

If you say so.

I enjoyed them a lot less.

[capn233]

It demonstrably is. The same shot produces less damage in the second game. Nerfing one side in almost all circumstances outweighs rewarding the other under very limited circumstances.

Being a sniper in ME2 is much more challenging. That defeats the explanation provided for the clips.
It's consistent with the lore. Less isn't more. More is more.

 

How is it demonstrable when the demonstration shows the exact opposite?

 

Assassination has a 45s cooldown in ME1.  You can't use it to compare time to kill to unbuffed rifle shots in ME2 unless you account for the massive 45s cooldown in the time to kill.  ME2 Mantis can fire 20 times in that period without reload canceling.

 

With non-assassination shots in ME1 you are overheating the rifle in a couple shots typically.  Then you wait for the rifle to cool which is about 5 seconds.  TTK / cycle times are clearly not that fast when you are talking about multiple targets.

 

Also, the explanation for thermal clips is more firing in the same amount of time.  This actually happens.  From the codex on small arms:

 

 

 

It was long thought that personal weapons had plateaued in performance, but the geth proved all theories wrong. Mathematically reviewing their combat logs, the geth found that in an age of kinetic barriers, most firefights were won by the side who could put the most rounds down-range the fastest. But combatants were forced to deliberately shoot slower to manage waste heat, or pause as their weapons vented.

The codex does not claim that damage per shot is higher, it claims that effective rate of fire is higher.  This is in fact what you see in game.

 

I also recall seeing someone do the math to compare effective ROF of the ME1 Avenger vs ME2 Avenger back in the day.  And sure enough ME2 Avenger has higher average rate of fire.

[Pasquale1234]

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

A choice the game doesn't support because raisins.
 

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.

There was a change made to the lore to accommodate thermal clips.

Even then, they weren't explained in a way that made sense relative to the actual mechanics as implemented. They were supposedly universal, yet you couldn't use them in the weapon of choice. The game automatically allocated them among weapons for you.
 

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.

Weapon breakage makes sense - not only IRL, but also lorewise.

The way thermal clips were implemented in ME2, it may as well have been explained as your sniper rifle breaking after a few shots, and you needed to pick up a repair part from a fallen enemy to use that weapon again. The net effect would have been identical.

And the net effect was anathema to RP. You couldn't play a purely (or even primarily) sniper Shepard, even in some of the maps that would otherwise support long-distance gunplay, because of the lameass thermal clip mechanics.

BG allowed you to decide how many arrows / bolts to carry out into the field with you, subject to inventory limits. In Bethesda titles (I'm familiar with FO3 & Skyrim), your character starts out with not much in the way of ammo / arrows, but can gradually build up a comfortable supply. You can argue that the weightlessness (and apparently lack of volume) of ammo / arrows in those Bethesda titles is unrealistic, but you can impose limits on your character if you so choose. The game mechanics do not interfere with that, and allow you to feel a natural sense of progression as you increase the supply of ammo / arrows you have on hand. ME2, OTOH, had these convoluted upgrade trees where you'd have available upgrades waiting until you could unlock them.

The thermal clip mechanics as implemented in ME2 supported the playstyle of those who enjoy min/max optimization, and/or enjoy swapping to the optimal weapon to strip each layer of defense the enemy presents. And that's great that your playstyle was well-supported. The thing is, you could choose to do that even without the per weapon limits they imposed.

It does not, however support a playstyle of anyone wanting to blow through the game using only a specific weapon or weapon type. Not on any difficulty.

[Pasquale1234]

I would agree that strictly speaking power use per mission is unlimited, but practically speaking you are limited by time constraints, whether they are real world constraints or the ability to kill every unit before they kill you.  Cooldowns create scarcity of power use essentially, it isn't completely unlike limited ammo.

I'd say they're quite dissimilar.

Weapons that dissipate heat over time (the overheating / cooldown mechanic) are directly comparable to power cooldowns.

The thermal clip mechanic as implemented would be more comparable to certain grenade powers that had a limited number of uses per mission. If you could pick up some sort of "power up" along the way to restore the grenade powers, well that would make them nearly identical to the way thermal clips were implemented.

[capn233]

I'd say they're quite dissimilar.

Weapons that dissipate heat over time (the overheating / cooldown mechanic) are directly comparable to power cooldowns.

The thermal clip mechanic as implemented would be more comparable to certain grenade powers that had a limited number of uses per mission. If you could pick up some sort of "power up" along the way to restore the grenade powers, well that would make them nearly identical to the way thermal clips were implemented.

 

They produce the same end essentially, a cap on the number of times you can use a power or the weapon in any amount of time.  They are not very dissimilar given the amount of ammo that is actually in the game.

 

It is only in the very fringes of hypothetical that the cooldown for powers allows you unlimited power use in a mission.  That mission has to have unlimited length, which doesn't really even make sense.  Practically speaking, how long does it take to do a mission only using your powers, not using weapons, and hiding squadmates where they do nothing?  It isn't even possible to finish a mission with some powers (like Overload) since they will not actually finish all enemy types.

[ArchangelN7]

Mass effect 2 was amazing but i would like more diverse class's and different skill trees for said class in MEA.

[themikefest]

Still talking about lack of ammo in ME2. hahahahaha

 

As I said, I had no problem. Maybe its because my Shepard can adapt and overcome without worrying about running out of ammo.

[Elhanan]

Still talking about lack of ammo in ME2. hahahahaha
 
As I said, I had no problem. Maybe its because my Shepard can adapt and overcome without worrying about running out of ammo.

So does mine; well, now that I have played it more than once. But those first two campaigns were filled with policing clips; the latter ones I simply did not care. If apathy was the goal, target achieved.

ME2 still remains my least fave title in the series, and remains on my list of least fave Bioware titles.

[TurianSpectre]

ME2 still remains my least fave title in the series, and remains on my list of least fave Bioware titles.

Really? How? It was considered the best out of the whole trilogy

[AlanC9]

Still talking about lack of ammo in ME2. hahahahaha

As I said, I had no problem. Maybe its because my Shepard can adapt and overcome without worrying about running out of ammo.

I believe Pasquale's point is than in a real RPG a PC should't have to adapt, but should be able to keeps doing exactly what he wants and succeed anyway.

[themikefest]

So does mine; well, now that I have played it more than once. But those first two campaigns were filled with policing clips; the latter ones I simply did not care. If apathy was the goal, target achieved.

So does yours what? Adapt and overcome? If that's the case you wouldn't be worrying about running out of ammo like you say.
 

ME2 still remains my least fave title in the series, and remains on my list of least fave Bioware titles.

Is it because of the language?

[SKAR]

Can't be both?