903 réponses à ce sujet

[Scarecrow_ES]

Hurray for the 500th post in the little topic that could!!!

[Scarecrow_ES]

Do you mean a sort of "blind fire" system, Goldfish, where you stick your weapon over or around a piece of cover and fire at things around the wall? If you do, I'm not sure I entirely see the point. I mean, I kinda crapped out in Gears of War after about 10 minutes of play, to be honest, so I can't quite remember how it works in that game. In the Rainbow Six series though, you could fire blindly around corners, but you had no expectation of accuracy. You were basically pulling the trigger and hoping something hit. This is about the only way I would support a blind fire system from cover. I would never support a system that lets you fire without aiming and have any reasonable expectation of accuracy.



So, keeping in mind the wild blind fire scenario, I just don't see what it adds to gameplay. In Rainbow Six, one shot from any weapon can be lethal, so even blind fire is enough to kill if used smartly. There wouldn't be a point in the ME univers because almost all of the weapons are weak. So your enemy has nothing to fear from you blindly firing around a corner. The only way this waste of ammo might make sense is if enemies are fearful enough to run for cover any time they're being shot at... which... let's be honest... they're just not programmed to be that smart. So you aren't going to randomly throw bullets out there and get guys to hunker down for it.



I would fully support a smarter power system that knows which powers are defensive and which are offensive, and then would only pull you out of cover for offensive power usage.

[Dualfinger]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

Dealing with the overwhelming heat and poisonous nature of the coolant system is easy enough as long as we come up with a decent enough reason why it doesn't cause harm. Hell, you really wouldn't have to come up with a good reason at all if you didn't feel like it as clearly not EVERYTHING has to be explained to the player, but given that BioWare has been good about explaining the science behind their gameplay choices in the past, I'd almost think it was an obligation to do so in this case. I'm not totally sold on the nomenclature of "blast-vent system" persay... there's likely a better scientific name for it... but it's not bad by any means.

The first issue I come up with is WHY the Mass Effect universe would switch to this technology. I figure in ME1 we had a good system of atmospheric heat sinks that disappated heat without needing anything extra. But this tech didn't work in zero atmoshpere, and was inconsistant in varying atmospheres, so we went to a self-contained heat absorbsion system - thermal clips. Now we can use the weapon in zero atmosphere environments, and the weapons work consistantly in any environment. Plus, they have a tremendous capacity for isolating heat. So why would we want to switch to something else... what's the scientific reason?

Well I have a few. One, the heat absorbsion capability of the thermal clip is not consistant with the ammo capacity of the weapon. The efficiency of thermal clips is not sufficient enough to keep up with the needs of prolonged firefights. They have to be dumped after only a few rounds, and do not have the longevity of the older heat-sink system. Two, they're bulky. The clips themselves are large and fairly complicated for throw-away devices. It's expensive and wasteful, and increases the size and weight of the weapon.

So, what about the new cryo-coolant system (BVS)? Let's say the system uses a material with tremendous heat absorbsion capabilities, but the system can also slowly disappate heat directly overboard as long as it is in an atmosphere that allows for it. So that's a bonus over the old system. Now, as long as you don't burn through the coolant, you can keep firing until your ammo or power cells run out. Also, since the super-cooled and field-isolated material has super high absorbancy, the actual amount of material required in the sink is much smaller than the full thermal clip.

You did read my last post right? I explained how we can work the use of "rechargeable" water cooling into the whole thing. I recognise that the system would be abused if you could just compltely clear you heat levels really fast all the time, and that it needs to be limited in it's use. But the way I thought of it, it gave you the freedom to use when nessasary without the threat of it running out completely.

Plus BVS is just the name I thought of on short notice, doesn't have to be that but it is easier to remember and abbriviate.

As for a canon reason to its devlopment. You could say this:

Although the Termal Clip System enjoyed a realativly large success in the armed forces, it wasn't long before inconsistances began to show with its proformance. Theremal Clips were easily corrupted by external factors such as dirt, metal fragments, various liquids and so on while in storage or being carted around the battlefeild. And degraded in use quickly on long missions. Scouts in particular suffered due to the clips continus exposure, causeing their weapons to jam or worse, cause the corrupted clip to become unstable with it's heat load as the outside influce began to melt into the main systems of the weapon, or catch fire. While the Clip system did allow for a much more rapid and continus fire that ever before, it was severly inhibiting dueing long firefights.

To help fix this problem, weapons manufactuers created a hybrid system from the two previous heat systems, with several additions. The new system, called (whatever fancy name here, but we'll stick with BVS for now) resumed the older technique of keeping all the weapons built up heat internal and passivly venting it into the atmosphere. For the Thermal Clip systems the new BVS system adapted the concept of dispersing heat into a series of several smaller heat sinks, rather than a singular core heat sink.

BVS would come into effect when the weapon entered a critical overheat, or at the users choosing. Water filtered in form the air would be contained on a small onboard tank. When BVS was active, the weapon would shut down, as the mass effect feilds used for fireing the weapon were repurposed to use the water to flood the heatsinks and  projected out of the opened side of the weapon, away from the user. By flooding the smaller, less heated heatsinks, the danger of having the user burned by the resulting steam was darasticly reduced. Mass effect feilds resposible for pushing the water through the heatsinks would then force the steam in a wide spread to furthur dissapte reduce the possiblity of the the steam interfering with onboard systems or damaging the user.

Once BVS had been proformed, the weapon would be unable to use it again untill the water tank had been refilled. While BVS did not allow for fire as sustained as that under the Thermal clip system, it surpassed the orginal systems by allowing for lengthy engagment of hostlie forces while allowing for a rapid cooldown when nessasary while only being effected but external factors such as dry conitions, which limits the time until BVS is avalible again.
 

Modifié par Dualfinger, 31 mars 2010 - 09:56 .

[Upset Goldfish]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

Do you mean a sort of "blind fire" system, Goldfish, where you stick your weapon over or around a piece of cover and fire at things around the wall? If you do, I'm not sure I entirely see the point. I mean, I kinda crapped out in Gears of War after about 10 minutes of play, to be honest, so I can't quite remember how it works in that game. In the Rainbow Six series though, you could fire blindly around corners, but you had no expectation of accuracy. You were basically pulling the trigger and hoping something hit. This is about the only way I would support a blind fire system from cover. I would never support a system that lets you fire without aiming and have any reasonable expectation of accuracy.

So, keeping in mind the wild blind fire scenario, I just don't see what it adds to gameplay. In Rainbow Six, one shot from any weapon can be lethal, so even blind fire is enough to kill if used smartly. There wouldn't be a point in the ME univers because almost all of the weapons are weak. So your enemy has nothing to fear from you blindly firing around a corner. The only way this waste of ammo might make sense is if enemies are fearful enough to run for cover any time they're being shot at... which... let's be honest... they're just not programmed to be that smart. So you aren't going to randomly throw bullets out there and get guys to hunker down for it.

I would fully support a smarter power system that knows which powers are defensive and which are offensive, and then would only pull you out of cover for offensive power usage.

That's pretty much what I was going for, yes. I have heard people asking for that on several sites, but I personally think it would detract from the game. As I said, the only way I would support it is if the current ammunition system was still in play, otherwise players may just end up camping out behind a wall with an infinite ammo supply, eventually hitting everything and moving on.

Basically, it wouldn't be much fun.

My only other issue with the cover mechanic is Shepard's eagerness to stand up randomly at points or jump over the crate I was trying to hide behind, but that rarely happens and is but a minor issue.

Another suggestion for potential improvements is more of a method of preventing international buyers from....well, getting a little pissed off. We all know of the Bioware Bazaar, and we also all know that it was originally intended to be international. As we can deduct from this and the recent post by the good Doctors themselves, Bioware likes to maintain a pleasingly awesome relationship with it's fanbase.

Problem is, Gamestop isn't global. What do I mean by this? I mean pre-order bonuses. Now, I'm not against pre-order bonuses, I think they are pretty cool. But, for those like me who cannot order said copies of the game, I am forced to sit in my little jealousy corner of all those with Inferno Armour. (NOTE THE DP:P)

What I propose is a solution with 2 different setups.

1) The preordered games come with an activation code, much like the Cerberus Network code for first time buyers. However, the "Pre-order" DLC is on the network from day one. This DLC would cost MS Points. So those who do not pre-order can still get the DLC, just not for free like the pre-order copies.

2) The "Pre-order" DLC is released later on, after initial release, either for free or at a lower price than in option 1. This allows those who did pre-order some exclusive time with their goodies, yet still lets the rest of us enjoy it.

Now, for countries where pre-order is impossible, this method may seem a little unfair. But hell, It's a lot better than no content that we could have been enjoying.

In summation, I'm just glad that the Dr. Pepper DLC codes were reusable. I got to enjoy the free DLC from across the globe.

Well, that's just an idea. All criticism is perfectly fine.

And I GOTS 500th POST?



It looks like that post...... got counted.

YEAAAAAAAAAAAH!

[yuncas]

When I said 200 mph I was talking about the ME2 heavy pistol and giving a general estimate with a little bit of exageration for effect. I'm no gun nut or avid hunter but I am pretty familiar with using firearms and knowing how they function.

[Master Smurf]

On the recoil/accuracy issue for clarification - Why then does the Hand Cannon fire slow or some of the submachine pistols tend to "move" on full auto? Is this just arbitrary by Bioware to make the guns different.

My reason for this - I would like to see more weapon models in the game, they dont have to be vastly different damage/rate of fire wise but could have personality (look and feel). I think MGS did great you had much choice (not advocating that level) when all you really needed was the dart gun or "operator and a few situational weapons.

[Scarecrow_ES]

Master Smurf... why does the Hand Cannon fire slowly or do automatic weapons show recoil drift? Balance I suppose. There isn't a scientific reason persay, given that mass effect field fundementally defy the basic laws of nature we're used to. I could be a mistake on BioWare's part in using a real world analog that simply doesn't apply to their technology, or simply, as you say, and arbitrary choice to differentiate the performance of different weapons... or balance, to make sure your hand cannon can't dish out the pain like the regular pistol can and automatic weapons inheritly less accurate than they should be (after all, if you could send 30 rounds to exactly the same spot, why use a pistol?).



I think the heavy weapons category really offers us the chance to create weapons that don't fit the regular mold. They don't have to be particularly powerful... just behave in a unique way. Of course, under my proposed system, there will be one weapon in every major category that breaks away from the pack and introduces something unique to that category too, other than just stat trade-offs, so there are definite possibilities.

[RhedmondBarry]

Very well thought out and articulated. I agree with everything and hope it all to be implemented in the future.



The only thing I would add would be my only big problem with both games so far, and thats the ability to unequip weapons. My reasons are purely aesthetic, but that means a lot in a game genre like this, right? I just think Shepard and squadmates would look a lot better without a personal armory on their back and easily putting an "Empty" slot at the top of each weapon type list in the armory is within the realm of possibility. Just think of how much better Grunt or Garrus would look without a block of assault rifle on their back. The idea gives options, which are nice, so if you like the look of the guns on your back you can of course keep them.



Thanks for the good read and hopefully some of these ideas are implemented in the future.

[TafkanX]

*cough*bump*cough*

[Scarecrow_ES]

I have to say RhedmondBarry... I'm not sure I understand you. I mean, I suppose it didn't make sense in ME1 for any character to carry around a weapon he technically was not trained to use, but even then you could still use it, even if you sucked with it. However, I don't think you can carry weapons in ME2 that you can't use. Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, because I really didn't pay that close attention. You can't select weapons you can't use, and I don't ever remember seeing an assault rifle or shotgun on the back of my Infiltrator. Are you implying that you'd want to intentionally gimp yourself or your squadmates by denying yourself access to one of the few weapons you could use for purely aesthetic reasons?



I'm all for freedom in RPGs, but that type of choice simply doesn't make sense.

[EternalWolfe]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

I'm all for freedom in RPGs, but that type of choice simply doesn't make sense.

For some, aesthetics are everything.  I've played WoW with people who choose to keep worse gear, purely for the looks of it(and in WoW, gear is everything).  And its not really that hard, I don't think - mostly a matter of blocking code and making the gun 'invisible', so to speak.

Edit: Just to note, the question of it being gimped is a matter of speculation - my infiltrator rarely used anything but his sniper rifle.  I only used the SMG for enemies with high shields(otherwise Overload did better) and Barriers(Warp).  Incinerate(both mine and Mordins) was a far more effective close-range weapon then my pistol or SMG(since most close-range enemies wear armor).  I would think you could probably pull it off, even if it is gimped, its not impossibly gimped.

Modifié par EternalWolfe, 02 avril 2010 - 04:36 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

It just seems... I dunno... kinda silly. Maybe it's just me. I mean, yeah I can see someone picking a type of weapon or armor with worse stats simply because it looks better than the options, but to go without a weapon at all just because you don't like what it looks like to carry it around when you're not using it?

[RhedmondBarry]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

I have to say RhedmondBarry... I'm not sure I understand you. I mean, I suppose it didn't make sense in ME1 for any character to carry around a weapon he technically was not trained to use, but even then you could still use it, even if you sucked with it. However, I don't think you can carry weapons in ME2 that you can't use. Of course, I could be completely wrong about that, because I really didn't pay that close attention. You can't select weapons you can't use, and I don't ever remember seeing an assault rifle or shotgun on the back of my Infiltrator. Are you implying that you'd want to intentionally gimp yourself or your squadmates by denying yourself access to one of the few weapons you could use for purely aesthetic reasons?

I'm all for freedom in RPGs, but that type of choice simply doesn't make sense.

 I'll elaborate further.  It would give the option for some of us, who want it, to unequip weapons we think makes our Shepard aesthetically unpleasing.  For instance, I am forced to play adept because the class has the least amount of gear on his back, while my true play style is soldier.  I'm playing an RPG, my characters appearance is important to myself and anyone planning on playing the game more than a few hours.   My idea gives the option for soldiers to remove a sniper rifle, heavy weapon whatever doesn't suit their playstyle and just makes the character look more cumbersome, all for the sake of aesthetics and preference. This is important to myself and others for the reasons I posted above.  My idea would also give the option for those who like to use biotics, to just simply run around with nothing more than bitoics and maybe a carnifex, for a change of pace or a challenge.

Yes, I was implying I would intentionally gimp myself or my squadmates, but using the word "gimp" is a bit drastic IMO.  I never switched between my squads weapons and never had the need to on all my runs (9) and even on insanity.  The only time I did, was for reasons like having to switch Garrus' weapon to his sniper rifle everytime I did a mission, because they have him start with an assault rifle.  Which if my idea was installed, I would never have to do again.  As for my Shepards, I only ever really use the assault rifle, carnifex, and tempest.  So having a heavy weapon, sniper rifle, or shotgun on my back is useless and not very pleasant to look at.   There are many others who would agree, but the idea gives options so if I wanted to have all the gear, I could.

You asked if I would deny myself the few weapons I have for aesthetic reasons.  The answer is yes, I barely used some of the weapons and aesthetics are a powerful thing in an RPG.  Some people, including myself, just paid for an alternate appearance pack. 

The idea is an easily installed option and an elementary RPG game design, the fact it doesn't make sense to you is beyond me as you seem more than competent.  But regardless, I agree with your original post and hope they implement your ideas as well as my one.

Modifié par RhedmondBarry, 02 avril 2010 - 08:09 .

[RhedmondBarry]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

It just seems... I dunno... kinda silly. Maybe it's just me. I mean, yeah I can see someone picking a type of weapon or armor with worse stats simply because it looks better than the options, but to go without a weapon at all just because you don't like what it looks like to carry it around when you're not using it?

Some of us don't need an armory, one or two guns is enough.  Also, most likely the weapons people would be foregoing are ones they don't like to use or are just aesthetically unpleasing.  So it makes sense.

Don't you have a favorite gun or two? Something you use 90% of the time?  I do and it makes the other weapons clogging up my back obsolete.  So a simple unequip option for those of us who want it, would be logical and reasonable.  For those who like the rack of guns, they can keep it.  Everyone wins.  Sounds good to me.

Modifié par RhedmondBarry, 02 avril 2010 - 09:14 .

[RhedmondBarry]

double post, sorry

Modifié par RhedmondBarry, 02 avril 2010 - 09:13 .

[Dualfinger]

I agree, when I played through ME1 as an adept, I got saddled with guns I'd never use...or could never use. Personaly I prefer to ditch the ones I can't use.

[Scarecrow_ES]

I don't know what to say. That really defies all logic that I can come up with. I understand what you're saying, but I suppose I just don't get the mentaility. From the perspective of a military veteran (which I am), I cannot imagine leaving any equipment behind that may be of use in a mission simply because there was something about it I didn't like... let alone something aesthetic. I couldn't imagine walking up to Garrus and asking him to leave his assault rifle behind because I thought it looked kinda funny sitting on his back when he wasn't using it. "Garrus is no longer loyal and is leaving your ship at the next port because you're a crazy-ass." "Hey guys, I know this might be a suicide mission, but could you leave your guns at home, I just don't like they way they look."



It's kinda like all those people who want to be able to pick each individual piece of clothing your squadmates wear. I can't imagine any real person is going to let you play dress-up with them, let alone the galaxy's greatest badasses. It's just... baffling really. I mean, I kinda get the choice thing, but this is kinda stepping over the crazy line, I think. That's just my opinion.

[EternalWolfe]

Scarecrow_ES wrote...

I don't know what to say. That really defies all logic that I can come up with. I understand what you're saying, but I suppose I just don't get the mentaility. From the perspective of a military veteran (which I am), I cannot imagine leaving any equipment behind that may be of use in a mission simply because there was something about it I didn't like... let alone something aesthetic. I couldn't imagine walking up to Garrus and asking him to leave his assault rifle behind because I thought it looked kinda funny sitting on his back when he wasn't using it. "Garrus is no longer loyal and is leaving your ship at the next port because you're a crazy-ass." "Hey guys, I know this might be a suicide mission, but could you leave your guns at home, I just don't like they way they look."

It's kinda like all those people who want to be able to pick each individual piece of clothing your squadmates wear. I can't imagine any real person is going to let you play dress-up with them, let alone the galaxy's greatest badasses. It's just... baffling really. I mean, I kinda get the choice thing, but this is kinda stepping over the crazy line, I think. That's just my opinion.

Its about the perspective of it all - you see the question in light of a military veteran, and of a role-player.  Others see it as a game first and foremost - controlling their party member's looks isn't dressing a real person, its just part of the game, not taking weapons isn't a bad desicions, its just a choice in a game made for aesthetic reasons.  I'm kinda with you on it, really - but then again, I see it from the pov of role-player(and therein a former military commander).

As far as some requests go, this ones fairly simple to impliment overall, without any serious detraction of the overall game.  *shrug* whatever.

[yuncas]

In regards to weapon coices, I'd at least care for the option to choose where the weapons are stored while on mission. Let me put the sniper rifle on my right side if I'm an infiltrator, let me put the smg across the small of my back where a shotgun would regularly go if I don't have one equipped. Something that bugged me was the dissappearing heavy pistol trick for classes that equip SMGs. Maybe have the pistol strapped the the thigh. I always thought that a crossdraw was inefficient and comparatively slow.

Although heavy weapons seem to be a prerequisite item for achieving victory on anything above veteran (for me at least) giving a player the ability to not carry them into a fight could lead to interesting gameplay in my opinion. I guess the reason I'd favor not carrying a heavy weapon would be that some are visually immpressive as well as visually busy and distracting, especially when the over the shoulder view from ME1 to ME2 seems to have been brought closer to the player, for the purpose of better aiming I suppose.

I don't think I ever used  ONE bullet with the shotgun while doing my soldier playthrough. I don't think I used my heavy pistol really at all either. Assault rifle and sniper rifle were my weapons of choice. I really didn't use my heavy weapons either, except for the endgame, no scratch that, I used my sniper rifle for that. Maybe that's what people are trying to get at. Don't saddle me with stuff I'll never use.

For most of my playthroughs with different classes I'd equip the flamethrower because when the game is so heavily reliant on good marksmanship to prevail in a firefight I didn't want to have anything taking my attention away from my focus on the enemies in front of me, ESPECIALLY my own weapons. Example: the cryo-gun. All those brigt blue tubes and venting gasses(could be mistaken on the gasses, maybe it was the cain) caught my attention when I was in the middle of a fight.  

Modifié par yuncas, 03 avril 2010 - 11:06 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

I just... if I came up with a list of even 100 things that could be fixed or improved for ME3, prioritizing those things that MUST be fixed first, things which can be fixed second, and things which do not need to be fixed but can be otherwise modified for improved gameplay last... allowing players to elect not to take weapons that their characters are specifically trained to use (given the limited number of weapons already available) for purely aesthetic reasons would be number... oh wait, it doesn't even make it on the list.



I mean, I get it, we're playing a role, and I don't like the way it looks. If the devs wanna do it, no problem. I just don't see any advantage at all in not having a weapon you're trained to use. You literally would gain nothing from leaving it behind. No extra ammo, no increased movement speed for reducing weight, nothing... It's just such a non issue that I couldn't recommend spending any time implementing this if all the other stuff hasn't been fixed first.

[TafkanX]

Actually the ability to eschew specific weapons for more "ammo" for the ones you do bring could be kinda cool. Then again, under your hybrid system it would be a non-issue so... yeah. I don't really care either way on it, but I'm not specifically against it as it would be an optional feature. I'm speaking as a military veteran as well, but I was a Navy electrician so my perspective is a little different (read: less relevant than, say, a Marine Corps infantryman). I generally toted around a toolbag with most of my general tools in it but I usually left behind specialized tools which were cumbersome or otherwise irritating to carry if they weren't specifically needed for the job toward which I was heading. That said, if I could get away with walking around with an armory strapped to my back every day I would probably do it...  

*editted to correct spelling/grammar

Modifié par TafkanX, 04 avril 2010 - 05:33 .

[Scarecrow_ES]

Well, while you might leave some of your specialized tools behind if the mission didn't call for them, surely you weren't about to start pulling tools out of your pre-packaged toolbox just because you didn't like the placement of your ford wrench or the shape of the handle of your bit-driver set. Plus, if for god knows what reason, you suddenly had to go TDY somewhere to fix an asset downrange, surely you'd bring everything you could possibly carry there just in case you needed it. That's just me though.



Like I said, I could see it if there was some real advantage to leaving a weapon behind. For instance, if I didn't use my pistol much at all, and not carrying a pistol and pistol ammunition allowed me to carry a proportionately larger amount of sniper ammo, I would definitely consider leaving that pistol on the ship. As of now, though, there is no advantage to not taking a weapon that you can use in a fight.

[TafkanX]

Point taken and largely agreed with. Again, in game I don't have to worry about what a pain in the ass it would actually be to carry all that junk and thus am fine with taking bloody everything. That said, if some kind of bonus were conferred for leaving something behind (a bit of extra speed, extra ammo/coolant/whatever, etc.) then it's certainly something I would consider, aesthetics be damned.

[Master Smurf]

As just a gamer - this is one of the things I thought was going to be possible from how the devs talked about it. Yes for the most part it is purely about look so I really couldnt argue for it.



It would only make sense for the classes who use SMG that then pick up the Vindicator

[Fluffeh Kitteh]

yuncas wrote...

In regards to weapon coices, I'd at least care for the option to choose where the weapons are stored while on mission. Let me put the sniper rifle on my right side if I'm an infiltrator, let me put the smg across the small of my back where a shotgun would regularly go if I don't have one equipped. Something that bugged me was the dissappearing heavy pistol trick for classes that equip SMGs. Maybe have the pistol strapped the the thigh. I always thought that a crossdraw was inefficient and comparatively slow.

Although heavy weapons seem to be a prerequisite item for achieving victory on anything above veteran (for me at least) giving a player the ability to not carry them into a fight could lead to interesting gameplay in my opinion. I guess the reason I'd favor not carrying a heavy weapon would be that some are visually immpressive as well as visually busy and distracting, especially when the over the shoulder view from ME1 to ME2 seems to have been brought closer to the player, for the purpose of better aiming I suppose.

It's inevitable weapons will be fighting for space on your back when you're carrying all that stuff anyway. Also, repositioning them is a rather superficial thing, about as superficial as having the ability to choose whether Kelly stands at her console on the CIC, or an alternate position 3 feet away.

Although I did once consider what it would be like if the weapon load was toned down (1 main weapon + 1 sidearm only). It'd be a lot more restrictive and compel players to do more careful choices (eg. I can't bring a sniper since I have a rifle equipped so I'll take Garrus with me to do sniping)