I vastly prefer ME's system, where a constant barrage would decrease your accuracy and eventually result in the gun overheating. IMO, the accuracy loss and overheat was enough penalty to balance the ability to shoot for long periods of time. Plus, it's nice that it doesn't follow the same cookie-cutter system of so many other games. I was disappointed to see it go in ME2.
I doubt they'll revert to the original's system, but that would still be my hope for Andromeda.
Mods are also not allowed to post with a unique username anymore. Just "mod ####" last I heard mention of them even posting to prevent any community grudges like what was his name... wuu or something? The Devs for ME probably retreated due to the community lashing out for ME3 and to prevent any puffery being perceived as promises. I was more active on the ME forums than DA at that time as that is my preferred Bioware series, but having a similar lashback does not sound out of possibilities.
I don't blame them honestly. As a film student I feel the jitters every time I present a project to a class, let alone the end of the semester when it's presented to any and all who want to see the student films when we have the end of semester film festival. I can't imagine some of the dev's jitters when a game releases and if I got the same lashback, reasonable or not I would have a hard time releasing something else to the public let alone make appearances.
This is something that was written by someone on another site, where he explains how the programming of the thermal clips work, and it makes them sound even more ridiculous, and really defeats the point of introducing the mechanic to begin with.
"Thermal clips are a blight, even by normal game design standards. I think it’s pretty universally agreed that the idea behind ammo mechanics is to force players to aim more carefully and be economic with their shooting, by tying shooting to an expendable resource. This rewards pre-planning and smart play; if a player stocks up on ammunition and aims well, they won’t run out in a time of need.
…but thermal clips are not expendable, and can’t be planned around. The damnable things are scripted not to appear unless the player is already low on ammo, and magically poof into the surrounding environment. Thanks to the small capacity for spares, they’re needed constantly.
So… the only time you can find more bullets is after you’ve run out of them, and must flail around awkwardly in the midst of battle looking for environmental cues. You cannot go exploring to stock up ahead of time. But rationing your shots is pointless, because once you’re spent the clips will reappear infinitely. We wouldn’t want you to actually run out of bullets, after all – just to experience the same annoyance over and over with no way to mitigate it.
This is a system designed specifically to capture the biggest downside of ammo-based shooting mechanics (having to dumpster-dive for bullets halfway through a boss battle), while eliminating all of the upsides with precision that borders on the immaculate.
Game design is part of my job. I’ve built a competitive FPS. I could not make a more horrible mechanical framework if I tried my hardest. Thermal clips are a true marvel."
You can find this comment here http://www.shamusyou...#comment-984332
So since people who dislike thermal clips are going to start believing this I should probably clarify: This is wrong information.
In Mass Effect 2 and 3 there are some thermal clips which respawn, but they are on a set timer rather than following the player's ammo capacity. The reason for these respawning thermal clips is for extended fights where the developers would have worried about you running out of ammo, such as the recruitment mission for Garrus where even a player who is incredibly accurate would run out of ammo if not for the respawning clips.
This is also not a mechanic unique to Mass Effect. Many single player shooters offer respawning ammo during boss fights in order to keep the player stocked up. Especially in Mass Effect 2 where the overall ammo capacity was lower, it would have been bad design to force the player to maintain 90%+ accuracy rates or else have to rely on nothing but powers and melee or half the fight.
The only reason I can see for thinking that it's based on player ammo is that Mass Effect 2 has a lower ammo capacity to begin with, and many players spend much of the game low on ammo so they could start thinking that they're getting thermal clips whenever they're low simply because that's most of the time for them.
One can make the argument that Mass Effect 2 offered too little ammo capacity which punishes people who can't maintain high accuracy or that during boss battles it's not very fun to go and find ammo, but the idea that the game just basically spawns ammo for you because you're low is not true.
Mass Effect 3 should largely be a non issue on ammo because it saturates you with thermal clips. You would have to be very inaccurate to actually run out of ammo.
As it happens, I would prefer the design this person describes. At least then the clips aren't appearing out of nowhere.So since people who dislike thermal clips are going to start believing this I should probably clarify: This is wrong information.
I know you don't care about in-game explanations for such things, but I doIn Mass Effect 2 and 3 there are some thermal clips which respawn, but they are on a set timer rather than following the player's ammo capacity. The reason for these respawning thermal clips is for extended fights where the developers would have worried about you running out of ammo, such as the recruitment mission for Garrus where even a player who is incredibly accurate would run out of ammo if not for the respawning clips.
As it happens, I would prefer the design this person describes. At least then the clips aren't appearing out of nowhere.
Or rather, it's not possible to see their absence and then have them suddenly appear.
You'd still have the game spawning clips for you during a boss fight because the game simply doesn't provide enough spare ammo capacity for you to be able to take down bosses without running out.
I know you don't care about in-game explanations for such things, but I do
I'd love to see a dev try to explain the in-game logicin-game logic behind respawning clips.
I don't care about in-game explanations if getting one is going to interfere with good game mechanics.
I find that when somebody tries to create in-game justifications for all of the mechanics without affecting any of the mechanics we get "space magic" like stuff so I just stop caring.
Like how 90% of the stuff in the game Overwatch currently works in lore "because nanobots". Any new unexplained mechanic in that game I just assume now works because nanobots, since that's the explanation we get for pretty much everything anyway.
Isn't that what powers are for?You'd still have the game spawning clips for you during a boss fight because the game simply doesn't provide enough spare ammo capacity for you to be able to take down bosses without running out.
The explanation is part of what makes the mechanic good.I don't care about in-game explanations if getting one is going to interfere with good game mechanics.
I know literally nothing about Overwatch. I'm guessing it's a game of some sort.I find that when somebody tries to create in-game justifications for all of the mechanics without affecting any of the mechanics we get "space magic" like stuff so I just stop caring.
Like how 90% of the stuff in the game Overwatch currently works in lore "because nanobots". Any new unexplained mechanic in that game I just assume now works because nanobots, since that's the explanation we get for pretty much everything anyway.
I know literally nothing about Overwatch. I'm guessing it's a game of some sort.
It's a new Blizzard shooter. I guess it's like Team Fortress (don't tell me you don't know that one though 
).
It's a new Blizzard shooter. I guess it's like Team Fortress (don't tell you don't know that one though
Plays more like a MOBA than a shooter tbh, unless you use someone like Soldier 76 or Widowmaker.
Team Fortress was originally a Half-Life mod, right?It's a new Blizzard shooter. I guess it's like Team Fortress (don't tell me you don't know that one though
Isn't that what powers are for?
Some classes are more reliant on weapon damage, such as Soldiers and Infiltrators. Sitting there spamming Concussive Shot on a Praetorian just because the game didn't give me enough ammo would be an exercise in frustration.
The explanation is part of what makes the mechanic good.
An unexplained mechanic is a bad mechanic.
I consider the explanation and the mechanic separated. The explanation is nice to have for immersion reasons, but the mechanic is good or bad on its own merits of how it plays out in the game itself.
I know literally nothing about Overwatch. I'm guessing it's a game of some sort.
It's a FPS from Blizzard with a surprising amount of lore for what is a purely multiplayer PvP shooter. Likely because it was made out of the remnants of a cancelled MMO they were making.
However when you have things like a character being able to revive other players, it's explained as working "because nanobots" which is the explanation we get for most of the stuff in that game that needs explaining.
I recognize that it's used as a convenient excuse for why things in the game work like they do, so I don't really care about the specifics of it. I do enjoy the rest of the lore, though.
Team Fortress was originally a Half-Life mod, right?
Yeah. Although I should say this is more TF2 (and that's more of a full game in it's own right).
This could well be why I disliked ME2's combat so much. I made the mistake of playing an Infiltrator.Some classes are more reliant on weapon damage, such as Soldiers and Infiltrators. Sitting there spamming Concussive Shot on a Praetorian just because the game didn't give me enough ammo would be an exercise in frustration.
How I use it will be dictated partly by the associated lore.I consider the explanation and the mechanic separated. The explanation is nice to have for immersion reasons, but the mechanic is good or bad on its own merits of how it plays out in the game itself.
Soldiers have a weapon for any situation. And back then, different weapons targeted different health/shield bars better. In addition to ammo. For a soldier, that's perfectly fine.
This could well be why I disliked ME2's combat so much. I made the mistake of playing an Infiltrator.
Infiltrator would have worked better for your style of play had they allowed paused aiming while scoped with sniper rifles, and increased the spare ammo capacity of the Mantis to not be 9 rounds.
Both of which are not changes I'd have been opposed to. The pause thing is annoying for me to play using anyway so I ignore it, and I can maintain just as high of accuracy without it while my "sniper rifle only" playthrough is showing me that they probably should have given us a bit more ammo in ME2.
How I use it will be dictated partly by the associated lore.
If I will or not depends on how invested I am in attempting to RP. Since I couldn't get invested in RPing much in Mass Effect and don't at all in Overwatch, then I'm not as bothered when they either don't explain a mechanic or the explanation is an obvious easy excuse like nanobots.
In a pen and paper game however I definitely use abilities based on both their lore as well as the personality of the character I'm playing as. I've had a character who refused to revive anybody she didn't care about(even though mechanically it barely cost anything to do), and she didn't care about most people.
Letting the Engineer use a sniper rifle would have been better still.Infiltrator would have worked better for your style of play had they allowed paused aiming while scoped with sniper rifles, and increased the spare ammo capacity of the Mantis to not be 9 rounds.
RP is the whole reason I'm playing. If I can't get invested in roleplaying, I'll just give up on the game.If I will or not depends on how invested I am in attempting to RP. Since I couldn't get invested in RPing much in Mass Effect and don't at all in Overwatch, then I'm not as bothered when they either don't explain a mechanic or the explanation is an obvious easy excuse like nanobots.
Letting the Engineer use a sniper rifle would have been better still.
The sniper rifle wasn't nearly as useful in ME2 as it was in ME1, as the combat tended to take place at much shorter ranges, and we never got to ambush anyone. But I didn't know that during character creation.
For you personally maybe, but that doesn't solve the core problem with your playstyle and sniper rifles and starts getting back into a greater discussion about weapon restrictions based on class that we already had in another thread.
Despite not having the extreme range anymore I still found the sniper rifle useful in ME2, though I am looking forward to hopefully getting that extreme range back in ME:A.
RP is the whole reason I'm playing. If I can't get invested in roleplaying, I'll just give up on the game.
Which would by why I can accept a good mechanic on its own merits without the need for a lore explanation, cause I'll play games for a very wide variety of reasons.
I would however, be less accepting of it if my GM just said "ammo magically appears in front of you every 5 rounds" during a fight in a pen and paper session because I do play that for RPing.
I might've liked ME1 more if the maps weren't so bad. If this new game tries to be as open, I'm curious how it'll improve on that. I liked the team (at least what they did in ME3), but they were using levels/stages. Like most shooters do. I don't know what they'll be like in an open setting.
The combat is almost secondary to me.
The wide open maps were the best thing about ME1, I think.I might've liked ME1 more if the maps weren't so bad. If this new game tries to be as open, I'm curious how it'll improve on that. I liked the team (at least what they did in ME3), but they were using levels/stages. Like most shooters do. I don't know what they'll be like in an open setting.
The combat is almost secondary to me.
I might've liked ME1 more if the maps weren't so bad. If this new game tries to be as open, I'm curious how it'll improve on that. I liked the team (at least what they did in ME3), but they were using levels/stages. Like most shooters do. I don't know what they'll be like in an open setting.
The combat is almost secondary to me.
The main thing I didn't like about Mass Effect 1 was how repetitive the maps got. Basically all of the merc bases on planets were one of two types, and the planets themselves were essentially all just a random square mile of mountain terrain with a different texture on them depending on what type of planet we were on.
Going back to more open areas in ME:A, I hope they have more variation in the planets and buildings.
The wide open maps were the best thing about ME1, I think.
Small carefully orchestrated battles are far less interesting to me. I'd much rather scout around and choose my angle of attack (or even whether to engage at all).
There's nothing wrong with wide and open, but it takes a lot more to make a good shooter than just big fields and boxes scattered about.
For you personally maybe, but that doesn't solve the core problem with your playstyle and sniper rifles and starts getting back into a greater discussion about weapon restrictions based on class that we already had in another thread.
Of course the topic of whether early game SR's really had much benefit on anybody in ME1 is pretty significant. They almost were a mid-late game luxury item, even if somewhat fun. Early game models can't hit much, overheat frequently, and you have a lot of sway without point investment.
Maybe the "problem" with ME2 was that the team had too many min-maxers on it, and that was how they were determining which things to streamline.
Alright, turn on your Mass Effect 2, and pick a semi auto gun, like the Matlock or the Viper. Now go kill some blue sun, or vorcha or Shadow Broker operative, whatever. You can do this with 3, 4, 5.....maybe 6 rounds (i think is too much)
Now go play Mass Effect 1 and try to kill a enemie with 3 or 4 shots.
Weapons without ammo like in ME1 = bullet sponge enemies.
OR...they could increase the gun damage or lower the HP of enemies.
Why are you so binary about this.
I don't think you and I want the same gameplay experience.There's nothing wrong with wide and open, but it takes a lot more to make a good shooter than just big fields and boxes scattered about.
Retour en haut