339 réponses à ce sujet

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...
1) ROF =/= win, since ME 2 changed how weapons do damage! If anything, the ME 2 system has made soldiers suck since they only have one gun!

2) The widow is what I exclusively used after getting it on the collector ship, however you can't use it in all situations like you could with a customised weapon in ME 1. The Widow would be more powerful with an ME 1 system.

3). It does take significantly more time, however as has already been noted, you're never going to get overheated in ME 1 once you make it past the middle of the game where the level XII weapons start showing up with their three open slots. Did the cooling agents magically disappear in the ME universe? This still does not shed any light on why heat sinks in ME 1 could overheat and be re-used and they cannot in ME-2, even with the passive cooling you mentioned. It makes no sense to completely ditch passive cooling to use one-trick pony heat sinks. Why not both (which is what I expected ME 2 to be like)?

1) Soldiers have access to Pistols, Shotguns, ARs, AND Sniper Rifles...I can't see how Soldiers suck.

2) The Widow would NOT be more powerful, it'd be the equivilant of having an SR with High Explosive Rounds, given the thing was made to shoot at vehicles, not people!

3) You mean Frictionless materials?  Those were likely not available to the army in mass quantitiles.  Also, heatsinks/thermal clips didn't exist in ME1.  The entire system was based on passive cooling, no clip or heat sinks were present whatsoever. 

1) Pistols, Shotguns, ARs, AND Sniper Rifles...do damage differently based on what they are shooting at. Not the case in ME 1 given the ability to upgrade parts.

2) HE would ****ing hurt!

3) I was colloquially speaking. When I say "ME 1 heat sink", you can assume that I am talking about what you call passive cooling.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 09 février 2010 - 06:21 .

[Gar_Logan]

Is the guy who leaves a debate first the stronger one or the weaker one? Crap.



Oh well. It's late here. We both have our own unshakable opinions, I see no reason in going further unless you want to go over the same stuff we have been another 20 or so times.

[RiouHotaru]

1) Passive cooling system =/= Heatsink. The cooldown system from ME1 was likely a system by which heat was forced out of the gun, facilitating a cool-down, not being stored in a heatsink.



2) That's exactly what we mean. Not everyone can afford the VII-X tier weapons or mods, which means you're only selling to a specific audience, which lowers your revenue. This means the "lower-tier" weapons are much more marketable.



3) The Spectre level equipment is something Cerberus could likely never get their hands on, and you don't know what kind of access they have to firearms dealers. They've only got 150 agents split among 3 cells. Even with billions of credits in income, that's not a lot of people.

[SmokePants]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

****ty AI scaling is what ruins the fun and breaks a system. "Ammo restrictions" (and I am glad that you have called it for what it truly is, since Bioware has tried to pass off that this is somehow an 'improvement' via the codex) breaks lore and is completely unecessary. Tweak the first system, don't completely dump it. I feel like I am playing Rainbow Six Las Vegas 2 half of the time, minus blindfire with the addition of casting.

And why do you care if a player gets to be lazy? It's a singleplayer game, let them play how they want! You can't throw out a subjective qualifier, such as "live in the moment", and not even bother to define it. What does that term even mean? Am I not "living in the moment" when I play ME 1?

"Better AI" is not a solution. Videogame AI is videogame AI. There are problems that cannot be solved in a practical way for every situation. If you're designing your game to put all of the stress on that one system, then you are a fool.

And what I mean by "living in the moment" is not playing like a zombie. Eyes glazing over, because you can do the same thing over and over without penatly or any reason at all to mix up what you're doing. Ammo resrictions make you pay attention. You actively try to take down the enemy, while expending as few resources as possible. Exploiting tactics: positioning, target prioritization, squad commands, etc. Deciding whether to risk advancing to replenish your resources or stay back and hold out with what you have. Basically, keeping the player sufficiently engaged from the opening volley until the last enemy drops. Ammo helps that. Arbitrary thermal limitations hurt it.

Players need restrictions placed on them. Just like children. Game design is like parenting. And a proper parent does things that the child doesn't approve of, but is ultimately for its benefit.

Modifié par SmokePants, 09 février 2010 - 06:30 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

RiouHotaru wrote...

1) Passive cooling system =/= Heatsink. The cooldown system from ME1 was likely a system by which heat was forced out of the gun, facilitating a cool-down, not being stored in a heatsink.

2) That's exactly what we mean. Not everyone can afford the VII-X tier weapons or mods, which means you're only selling to a specific audience, which lowers your revenue. This means the "lower-tier" weapons are much more marketable.

3) The Spectre level equipment is something Cerberus could likely never get their hands on, and you don't know what kind of access they have to firearms dealers. They've only got 150 agents split among 3 cells. Even with billions of credits in income, that's not a lot of people.

1) I clarified my statements in my previous post. Removal of the passive cool down has made heat sinks ammunition. This does not even get into the fact of "universal heat sinks" only working for specific guns. This makes them even more like ammunition.

2) Just because people cannot afford a Wilson Combat 1911 does not mean that there is no longer a market for them and everyone must now use Rock Island Armory models. As a level 50 Spectre, I didn't see any shortage of what you would describe as "high end" weapons in ME 1 from all ranges of folk.

3) I was reinstated as a Spectre. Many of the guns I used weren't even Spectre status... What happened to them? Where can I get my gear? ME 2 does not address any of this and it's not your fault.

Have a goodnight. I have to hit the hay as well.

SmokePants wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

****ty
AI scaling is what ruins the fun and breaks a system. "Ammo
restrictions" (and I am glad that you have called it for what it truly
is, since Bioware has tried to pass off that this is somehow an
'improvement' via the codex) breaks lore and is completely
unecessary. Tweak the first system, don't completely dump it. I feel
like I am playing Rainbow Six Las Vegas 2 half of the time, minus
blindfire with the addition of casting.

And why do you care if a
player gets to be lazy? It's a singleplayer game, let them play how they
want! You can't throw out a subjective qualifier, such as "live in the
moment", and not even bother to define it. What does that term even
mean? Am I not "living in the moment" when I play ME 1?

"Better
AI" is not a solution. Videogame AI is videogame AI. There are problems
that cannot be solved in a practical way for every situation. If you're
designing your game to put all of the stress on that one system, then
you are a fool.

Putting all of the stress on one system...like ammunition. Hypocritical much?

And what I mean by "living in the moment" is not playing like a zombie.
Eyes glazing over, because you can do the same thing over and over
without penatly or any reason at all to mix up what you're doing. Ammo
resrictions make you pay attention. You actively try to take down the
enemy, while expending as few resources as possible. Exploiting tactics:
positioning, target prioritization, squad commands, etc. Deciding
hether to risk advancing to replenish your resources or stay back and
hold out with what you have. Basically, keeping the player sufficiently
engaged from the opening volley until the last enemy drops. Ammo helps
that. Arbitrary thermal limitations hurt it.

There were penalties for not doing things the "right way" in ME. It's quite comical; you're arguing that a player customizing his weapon in ME 1 to match his opponent (synthetic, organic, do I want more damage and higher heat? Cyro rounds, rounds to bypass shields but do less damage, ETC) is more of a zombie then someone using "SMG for Shields, Pistols for Armor, Sniper for Shields". ME 2 combat is a FIXED path that a player must follow; ME 1 had options and you're trying to tell me multiple combinations is akin to just sitting there. You're not making sense.

Players need restrictions placed on them. Just like children. Game
design is like parenting. And a proper parent does things that the child
doesn't approve of, but is ultimately for its benefit.

It's not for the player's benefit if an "upgrade" breaks previous RPG lore. Videogames are ment for consumption and market value, which is a matter of giving players what they want (which has NOTHING to do with parenting).

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 09 février 2010 - 06:39 .

[SmokePants]

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Putting all of the stress on one system...like ammunition. Hypocritical much?

I said THAT one system. AI. That's the one system you don't want to rely on to bail you out of poor choices made elsewhere. And "All the stress" is not on Ammo. It's just carrying its weight now.

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

There were penalties for not doing things the "right way" in ME. It's quite comical; you're arguing that a player customizing his weapon in ME 1 to match his opponent (synthetic, organic, do I want more damage and higher heat? Cyro rounds, rounds to bypass shields but do less damage, ETC) is more of a zombie then someone using "SMG for Shields, Pistols for Armor, Sniper for Shields". ME 2 combat is a FIXED path that a player must follow; ME 1 had options and you're trying to tell me multiple combinations is akin to just sitting there. You're not making sense.

Arbitrary decisions mean arbitrary fun. You managed to fool yourself into thinking that how you customized your weapons and armor mattered and not everyone is able to delude themselves so thoroughly. When you can hang back and shoot and shoot and shoot, it does not matter. You're killing the enemy slightly faster, but you're spending that saved time fiddling in the equipment screen.

When you have ammo limitations, it DOES matter that you're using disrupter ammo with your sniper rifle to take down the shields. There is a REAL reason to kill everything as efficiently as possible, instead of an imaginary one.

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

It's not for the player's benefit if an "upgrade" breaks previous RPG lore. Videogames are ment for consumption and market value, which is a matter of giving players what they want (which has NOTHING to do with parenting).

People come for one reason and stay for another. That other reason, in this case, would be sound, responsible combat design. I feel so silly arguing this point. If any of you were to interview for a gameplay design job and you expressed a preference for ME1 combat over ME2, you wouldn't get the job and would probably be escorted out of the building right then and there.

Oh, and ****prioritizing lore over gameplay. Yet another point of view that would get you tossed out of any respectable studio.

Modifié par SmokePants, 09 février 2010 - 07:04 .

[Cajeb]

First off I'd like to say that my brother and I primarily play shooters. We've spent most of our gaming time playing shooters. Hell I probably played over 1000 hours for Call of Duty 2. We both disliked the ammo system in ME2. For different reasons.

I like sniping. I like killing in 1-2 shots. It is my thing. In every shooter I use the gun that gives me the most kills in the most situations with the least shots. I like using slow RoF guns because it forces me to be accurate and get that one-shot kill. I love sniping. I loved sniping in ME1. I would go through levels and snipe almost everything and use my pistol for the rest. I didn't load out with Frictionless Materials. I hate how in ME2 I have to change my playstyle from stealthy, deadly, Infiltrator to invisible rambo with the machine pistol.

My brother hates the ammo packs because he doesn't think they drop often enough. He played Sentinel and every hour I heard him complain about lack of ammo. He was primarily using the two pistols and he hated having to switch from the handgun every battle.

They are poor decisions from a gameplay standpoint. It doesn't improve combat necessarily. They streamlined a lot of combat but everyone only points to the ammo as the sole reason combat is better.

The explanation does not fit with lore. It is insulting.

It is poorly executed. Really? My Infiltrator has 13 bullets? REALLY? His signature weapon is a sniper rifle and he only loads out with 13 shots? Why? No other shooter so limits the sniper. Why wouldn't my Shepard leave the 10-15 clips for the SMG and bring those extra shots for the sniper?

If they wanted to force us to use auto-weapons the whole time like the AR and the SMG they should have just said so. It limits styles. The only weapons you can use non-stop are the SMG and the AR and maybe the shottie (though I've heard differently.) This is much more rambo. Especially with the new cloaking, tech armor, vanguard charge, etc. abilities. It isn't tactical. It is encouraging closing with the enemy, which is a valid strategy, but unfortunately it isn't all of ours first choices. I bring different teammates for a reason, they have different skills. I should be encouraged to play my style sit back and suppress, kill high-priority targets, while having squadmates that compliment me such as Grunt for close range flanking and executing. Instead we are all encouraged to spray, curve powers, or rush.

Modifié par Cajeb, 09 février 2010 - 07:11 .

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

SmokePants wrote...

Dr. Peter Venkman wrote...

Putting all of the stress on one system...like ammunition. Hypocritical much?

I said THAT one system. AI. That's the one system you don't want to rely on to bail you out of poor choices made elsewhere. And "All the stress" is not on Ammo. It's just carrying its weight now.

It's not carrying its weight; it has become the crux of the entire ME 2 combat system. That's more than "carrying weight".

Arbitrary
decisions mean arbitrary fun. You managed to fool yourself into
thinking that how you customized your weapons and armor mattered and not
everyone is able to delude themselves so thoroughly. When you can hang
back and shoot and shoot and shoot, it does not matter. You're killing
the enemy slightly faster, but you're spending that saved time fiddling
in the equipment screen.

If you don't make the right weapon choices in ME 1 you're still going to have to change your tactics accordingly. ME 2 went the other way and made things only have hard counters, effectively removing combinations (options) and made weapon x specific for situation y.

When you have ammo limitations, it DOES
matter that you're using disrupter ammo with your sniper rifle to take
down the shields. There is a REAL reason to kill everything as
efficiently as possible, instead of an imaginary one.

Kind of lack having a "real reason" to use different materials and components to suit different playstyles instead of being pidgeonholed into one thing over and over. You're argument has imploded on itself.

People come for
one reason and stay for another. That other reason, in this case, would
be sound, responsible combat design. I feel so silly arguing this
point. If any of you were to interview for a gameplay design job and you
expressed a preference for ME1 combat over ME2, you wouldn't get the
job and would probably be escorted out of the building right then and
there.

Sound responsible combat design that completely ignores and creates huge weapon technology discrepancies in an RPG universe. Doesn't sound so "sound" at all. And of course I wouldn't get the job, because you work for a major game design company, right? It's getting hard to hear you from up on your high horse and through your saddle.

Oh, and ****prioritizing lore over gameplay. Yet another
point of view that would get you tossed out of any respectable studio.

I'm not prioritizing lore over gameplay. You're asserting that hard-counters are super cool and an improvement over the previous game. In reality all you're doing is same thing over, and over again.

P.S.

You don't work for a studio and don't pretend to. When it comes to that:



Knock off the petty insults. It's not helping your position.

Modifié par Dr. Peter Venkman, 09 février 2010 - 07:27 .

[Destructo-Bot]

Gar_Logan wrote...

Consider Person A. He had thermal clips. He's battling person B. Who has your one heatsink style weapon. Person B's weapon overheats, he's waiting for it to cool down. Person A ejects his heatsink and has a full round of ammunition ready. Person A rushes person B while he's screwed over.
.

Person B waits in cover until person A runs out of ammo and then rushes him when person A is REALLY screwed over.

Silly examples don't add anything to the debate.

[VeteranChild]

I'm going to give you two different ways of understanding why thermal clips make more sense in the universe and game play



First let us take a look at the futuristic weapon systems of ME1 and ME2

ME1: If you played the game you are no doubt aware that you weapons overheats rather than reloads. The weapon systems of the future don't use clips, they use a single block of steel, with a miniurature mass accelerator. Bullets have been phased out by superior technology.

The gun can fire continuously without reload until it overheats cause a brief cool down time. The unfortunate truth to this is that the more powerful the shot the quicker your weapon overheats, for instances powerful sniper rifles and shotguns overheat much faster than an assault rifle or pistol. This is remedied by installing superior grade heat sink, capable of withstanding greater temperatures, this is very expensive on the grand scale most militaries would need them for, especially if the soldier dies and thw weapon is lost. Only special operatives (Such as specters) have access to these superior heat sinks allowing them to fire for prolonged times. Whereas other soldiers are forced to control their firing rate as no to risk overheating. Thus defeating the point of replacing the clip.

ME2: Recently put into mass production is thermal clips, disposable heat sinks. The major advantage of these weapons is not that they are cheap, but the soldier or any class it no longer restricted by the fear of overheating. One simply ejects the heated sink and a new one takes it place. This is almost as efficient as the higher grade heat sinks and much cheaper to outfit an armory with them. No doubt though that some weapons could not operate on the old system without extremely superior heat sinks. For instance the widow sniper rifle. An anti material rifle would easily overheat most heat sink possibly even warp them. but with disposable heat sink the old is ejected and the rifle is ready to fire again. Not only that but these disposable heat sinks have removed the threat of your weapon being over heated by and enemy engineer. You've noticed the trick is no longer available, why? Because if the sink is over heated it is ejected you only spent half a second replacing it instead of waiting five for it to cool down,



You might be thinking that shepard should have access to the old guns since he was or is still a specter and should have accesses to this special weaponry. Well you are right in all accounts the old system should still exist , you should have access to guns with superior heat sinks, unfortunately all your weapons are low grade weapons picked up of the street and not bought from C-sec academy or the black market. These weapons would however cost a great sum of credits seeing as they would have to be made of a superior material.

On a side note these thermal clips were adopted from the geth for their efficiency.

On another side note, from on programmer of games to you the gamers is this. In the first Mass effect you could get the HMWA VII or X or any weapon in that class and upgrade it accordingly so that it would never overheat, this takes away certain elements from the game. The thermal clips are for the best so stop whining.



BOOOO-HOOOO I can't make my gun shoot forever, oh woe is me, why must I replace my heat sinks.

[Cajeb]

Really? Do you read what you write? Never overheating is about the same as reloading. Besides, those upgrades are pretty late in the game IIRC. I know I didn't get access to them anywhere near the beginning. Being broken at the end of an RPG is normal.

Modifié par Cajeb, 09 février 2010 - 08:27 .

[Destructo-Bot]

But a squad with cooldown weapons can still lay down suppressing and cover fire effectively due to their numbers. More guns = more bullets and they just cycle out during cooldown times. Then the other guys run out of heatsinks, which they will since they can fire so much "faster" and BAM! Game over.

This is why everyone would carry a sidearm or secondary that uses cooldown and why it is absolutely stupid to only have heat clip weapons. The logic JUST DOESN'T WORK for heat clips only.

It's either hybrid or BOTH systems together to make ANY logical sense. Willing suspension of disbelief... broken!

Modifié par Destructo-Bot, 09 février 2010 - 08:31 .

[VeteranChild]

Cajeb wrote...


Really? Do you read what you write? Never overheating is about the same as reloading. Besides, those upgrades are pretty late in the game IIRC. I know I didn't get access to them anywhere near the beginning. Being broken at the end of an RPG is normal.

It has the ability to kill any playthrough afterwards since you can carry over your weapons and armor. So suppercharged guns are still bad no matter what. Find a new stradegy to play, and stop complaing that you cant use your old one.

[VeteranChild]

Destructo-Bot wrote...

But a squad with cooldown weapons can still lay down suppressing and cover fire effectively due to their numbers. More guns = more bullets and they just cycle out during cooldown times. Then the other guys run out of heatsinks, which they will since they can fire so much "faster" and BAM! Game over.

This is why everyone would carry a sidearm or secondary that uses cooldown and why it is absolutely stupid to only have heat clip weapons. The logic JUST DOESN'T WORK for heat clips only.

It's either hybrid or BOTH systems together to make ANY logical sense. Willing suspension of disbelief... broken!

Yes a hybrid of both would solve issues, to much of you dismay though it makes little sense to make a heat sink with moderate cooldown only to be thrown away. To outfit a whole army it makes more sense, to outfit one person no it dosnt, we should have the option to drop so serious credits to get one of the old guns or atleast aybrid of two.
As a whole it make more realistic, but more inconvient for you the individual.

[Cajeb]

Why? Why should I find a new strategy and quit complaining? Why don't you stop defending? I have every right to post my opinions. If you chose to NG+ in ME1 with a high level char with great equipment that was obviously your choice. You wanted OP fun. I didn't. Why the hell would you argue that the old system is broken because it allows you to be OP if you so choose after you beat the game? Seriously? How is that not a good thing?

You act like "supercharged guns" are bad why? ME2 is a ****ing cakewalk. I can plink plink and beat any battle or just hide and spam powers. It is not challenge. But not sniping isn't as fun for me. The people acting like this brings challenge to ME2 or makes you change up your strategy for more difficulty probably suck at video games. Shooters are easy if you have skills/brains. Even on hardest settings.

Modifié par Cajeb, 09 février 2010 - 08:49 .

[Frotality]

Cajeb wrote...

First off I'd like to say that my brother and I primarily play shooters. We've spent most of our gaming time playing shooters. Hell I probably played over 1000 hours for Call of Duty 2. We both disliked the ammo system in ME2. For different reasons.

I like sniping. I like killing in 1-2 shots. It is my thing. In every shooter I use the gun that gives me the most kills in the most situations with the least shots. I like using slow RoF guns because it forces me to be accurate and get that one-shot kill. I love sniping. I loved sniping in ME1. I would go through levels and snipe almost everything and use my pistol for the rest. I didn't load out with Frictionless Materials. I hate how in ME2 I have to change my playstyle from stealthy, deadly, Infiltrator to invisible rambo with the machine pistol.

My brother hates the ammo packs because he doesn't think they drop often enough. He played Sentinel and every hour I heard him complain about lack of ammo. He was primarily using the two pistols and he hated having to switch from the handgun every battle.

They are poor decisions from a gameplay standpoint. It doesn't improve combat necessarily. They streamlined a lot of combat but everyone only points to the ammo as the sole reason combat is better.

The explanation does not fit with lore. It is insulting.

It is poorly executed. Really? My Infiltrator has 13 bullets? REALLY? His signature weapon is a sniper rifle and he only loads out with 13 shots? Why? No other shooter so limits the sniper. Why wouldn't my Shepard leave the 10-15 clips for the SMG and bring those extra shots for the sniper?

If they wanted to force us to use auto-weapons the whole time like the AR and the SMG they should have just said so. It limits styles. The only weapons you can use non-stop are the SMG and the AR and maybe the shottie (though I've heard differently.) This is much more rambo. Especially with the new cloaking, tech armor, vanguard charge, etc. abilities. It isn't tactical. It is encouraging closing with the enemy, which is a valid strategy, but unfortunately it isn't all of ours first choices. I bring different teammates for a reason, they have different skills. I should be encouraged to play my style sit back and suppress, kill high-priority targets, while having squadmates that compliment me such as Grunt for close range flanking and executing. Instead we are all encouraged to spray, curve powers, or rush.

THANK YOU

ME2s system is highly imbalanced in favor of automatic weapons, as an infiltrator, this is very frustrating. it doesnt encourage me to savor bullets, it forces me to. it doesnt encourage switching weapons (why that is a positive i dont know), but encourages me to use an smg the vast majority of the time.

an opposing opinion from the fans of the action games you saught to copy bioware; some food for thought.

[RiouHotaru]

Why is that everytime we (those of us on the pro-heatsink corner) point out how the lore obviously fits with the system the anti-ammo crowd immediately ignores us or says our evidence is flawed? There. Isn't. Any. Inconsistency. The use of universal thermal clips and heat sinks was a move taken by the Alliance military as a means of giving their soldiers the ability to sustain fire for longer periods of time than was before possible under the old system. The fact that thermal clips were universal makes them profitable because they work in ANY small arm.



Also, people who argue for "Why can't I share clips with my SMG and with my other guns?" I'll spell this out to you, as plainly as possible. The ammo counter? Has NOTHING to do with physical ammo. The gun still uses the block/chunk/etc of metal and shakes off enough for a single slug. The counter? Tells you how many shots you can fire before the heatsink has to be replaced, and how many total shots before the entire thermal clip must be changed out.



The manual specifically states each thermal clip contains a number of heatsinks which are fed into the gun.

[Cajeb]

RiouHotaru wrote...

Why is that everytime we (those of us on the pro-heatsink corner) point out how the lore obviously fits with the system the anti-ammo crowd immediately ignores us or says our evidence is flawed? There. Isn't. Any. Inconsistency. The use of universal thermal clips and heat sinks was a move taken by the Alliance military as a means of giving their soldiers the ability to sustain fire for longer periods of time than was before possible under the old system. The fact that thermal clips were universal makes them profitable because they work in ANY small arm.

Also, people who argue for "Why can't I share clips with my SMG and with my other guns?" I'll spell this out to you, as plainly as possible. The ammo counter? Has NOTHING to do with physical ammo. The gun still uses the block/chunk/etc of metal and shakes off enough for a single slug. The counter? Tells you how many shots you can fire before the heatsink has to be replaced, and how many total shots before the entire thermal clip must be changed out.

The manual specifically states each thermal clip contains a number of heatsinks which are fedinto the gun.

How can you sustain fire for longer periods of time with finite ammo? Does not compute. Yeah offer me a sniper with unlimited ammo I can fire every 4 seconds or one I can fire 13 times every 2 seconds. Who can sustain fire for a longer period of time? Obviously the thermal clip crowd! Oh wait...

So you close your first paragraph talking about universal thermal clips then start the second trying to explain why they aren't unvirsal...good luck. The rest of the post had nothing to do with them being universal. You just explained how the counter works.

[Arrtis]

I dislike the system.

THey should have added a button to maek your squad search the area for clips.

[Cajeb]

Luc0s wrote...

Ammo (thermal clips) > heat-sink. People who run out of ammo in Me2 are 'n00bs'. Period.

No seriously, I know Mass Effect is not a shooter but an action-rpg with shooter elements, but I always thought it was lame in ME1 that you don't have ammo to worry about. It made the game way to easy, even on 'insane'. After a while when you get guns with 3 upgrade slots and a few good heatsink upgrades, you can just slam 2 heatsinks and an accuracy upgrade in the upgrade slots and the gun will never overheat. This in combination with an assault rifle (which every anti-ammo person seems to love) makes run-and-gun Rambo-style possible and even appealing. Any character with the spectre assault rifle and a few heatsinks and accuracy upgrades was basically a non-stop bullet-spamming mirage of death.

The new combat system in ME2 demands a tactical approach, even if you're a soldier with an assault rifle. The new thermal-clip system fits this new combat system like a glove. People who are against the thermal-clip ammo system because they run out of ammo are either blind or just total n00bs who need 3 full magazines to kill a single collector.

WHY? WHY DOES EVERY PRO AMMO PERSON DO THIS?

Using the AR is just as easy in ME2 as in 1. Us anti-ammo folks aren't AR junkies who want to Rambo all day long. The major complaint is that we can't snipe or pistol our way through levels. The AR and SMG are the only guns who have always have a ****load of ammo in ME2. Couple this with something like Tech Armor and you are a charging spray and pray juggernaut of death.

The charging and non-stop bullet-spamming is something I never did in ME1 but I find extremely useful in ME2.

I mean seriously, end game full upgrades I have 14ish rounds on the sniper and 700 on the smg? And each clip is something like 1-2 sniper shots and 30+ smg shots? And this isn't bullet-spamming whoring? Especially with cloaking, tech armor, vanguard rush, bullet time, etc?

[Cajeb]

I will admit running out of ammo on my sniper and pistol is rare, this is more because I played extremely conservatively with my ammo. I tried to rarely use the SMG...but when you have 5 shots left in your sniper and in your pistol you are scared to waste shots.

[Madriker]

I loathed the infinite ammo in ME. While I dug the weapons an' armor leveling and upgrade slots, I felt it was just too easy. I support the clips entirely. Havin' them stresses importance on tactics and reservation while bestowing consequences on spastic, trigger-happy nubs.



Also, in my personal experience, I've never had issues with running out of ammo. Clips drop regularly, though it can be difficult spotting 'em, for sure.

[Lycidas]

I really like the "reload" system. The only thing I don't like is that I run out of "ammo" all the time with the shotgun or sniper rifle.