339 réponses à ce sujet

[RiouHotaru]

KalosCast wrote...

blank1 wrote...

The
fact that you didn't see my refutation to that is pretty much damning
evidence of your stupidity. I'll refute this new argument that you've
fabricated as well.

There isn't an issue with heatsinks in that
they "behave" like bullets. They only do so from you're own
perspective. I think it'd be fairly standard protical to for a heatsink
to store a certain amount of shots per canister -- you can shave off a
grain from your block of metal to fire, and you have enough room in
your heat sink to fire that 50 times before you need to switch the
canister. How hard is that to comprehend?

The reason why guns
have restricted ammo pools, despite the universal magazines, is because
the game would be retardedly easy if you had a Widow Anti-Material
rifle with 100 shots. I think you're just bad at games, TBH. The logic
is simple, even for you. If you want to shoot your AR for 10 minutes
straight, ME1 is still around brah.

Okay,
lets' look at the Hand Cannon since I guess I have to explain how much
of a drooling moron you are. And ONCE AGAIN I have no problem with
limited ammo, just the fact that the current system doesn't make any
goddamn logical sense...

According to the hand cannon, your heatsink can last 6 shots before overheating

You
fire three shots and then eject the heatsink... your pool goes down by
three shots even though you lost the entire 6-shot heatsink.

Therefore
heatsinks behave like bullets. They don't even behave like clips. Game
WITH bullets like Battlefield 2 and SWAT 4 have clips that behave more
like heat-clips than Mass Effect and they're using real world tech.
(Battlefield 2 you drop the entire magazine on the ground, SWAT 4 you
store the old magazine and put a fresh one in, and rotate them)

Therefore, the heatsinks behave like bullets, not like heat-clips or heatsinks that would realistically cool down at some point.

images/spacer.gifimages/spacer.gif
Wait wait wait...so your issue is the semantics of the numbers that pop up?../../../images/forum/emoticons/andy.png  Wtf?  Who cares if the heat-sink system doesn't work exactly
as you think it should.  The codex and manual state it quite clearly
why it works the way it does.  If you don't like the system simply
because it's easier on you than Battlefield 2 or SWAT 4...well, you're
SOL.

Also, do you have any
idea how much heat those guns must produce?  I mean, Zaeed caused
gasoline (or some fuel) to ignite with
JUST THE HEAT FROM A POPPED HEATSINK.  At temperatures that high, a
"natural" cooldown would take forever!  What substance is being used to
quick-cool the gun isn't something that can just bleed off heat at a
moment's notice.

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 04 février 2010 - 07:28 .

[KalosCast]

blank1 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

blank1 wrote...

The fact that you didn't see my refutation to that is pretty much damning evidence of your stupidity. I'll refute this new argument that you've fabricated as well.

There isn't an issue with heatsinks in that they "behave" like bullets. They only do so from you're own perspective. I think it'd be fairly standard protical to for a heatsink to store a certain amount of shots per canister -- you can shave off a grain from your block of metal to fire, and you have enough room in your heat sink to fire that 50 times before you need to switch the canister. How hard is that to comprehend?

The reason why guns have restricted ammo pools, despite the universal magazines, is because the game would be retardedly easy if you had a Widow Anti-Material rifle with 100 shots. I think you're just bad at games, TBH. The logic is simple, even for you. If you want to shoot your AR for 10 minutes straight, ME1 is still around brah.

Okay, lets' look at the Hand Cannon since I guess I have to explain how much of a drooling moron you are. And ONCE AGAIN I have no problem with limited ammo, just the fact that the current system doesn't make any goddamn logical sense...

According to the hand cannon, your heatsink can last 6 shots before overheating

You fire three shots and then eject the heatsink... your pool goes down by three shots even though you lost the entire 6-shot heatsink.

Therefore heatsinks behave like bullets. They don't even behave like clips. Game WITH bullets like Battlefield 2 and SWAT 4 have clips that behave more like heat-clips than Mass Effect and they're using real world tech. (Battlefield 2 you drop the entire magazine on the ground, SWAT 4 you store the old magazine and put a fresh one in, and rotate them)

Therefore, the heatsinks behave like bullets, not like heat-clips or heatsinks that would realistically cool down at some point.

You entirely missed my point.

Remember when I said on page 3 that hyper realism makes for a terrible game? Yeah I uderstand that when you reload with 15 shots left in a magazine, you don't magically get another 15 in your reserve ammo pool. However -- the point of the ammo system is not to be realistic becuase Bioware thinks sht like that is cool -- it's to create a better gameplay experience. I never said that the heatsink system wasn't a carbon copy of an ammo system -- it is. However, it's a way that fits into ME univers canon. Not smoothly, but it still works, and makes for better gameplay without fcking canon in the ass.

You can have your hyper realism. I'll take my fun game, kthx.

Also, I enjoy how you're arguing the straw man fallacy without even being aware of it. lolz

Yo dawg, we heard you like reading comprehension, so we added some comprehension to your reading so you can comprehend while you read. K brah?

So it sounds like we're both in agreement then, it's a system that works fine in gameplay that has ****ty writing. Glad we could finally come to this conclusion.

[Railstay]

EDarkness wrote...

IndomitusRex wrote...

And really, how many shooters have you played where the computer-controlled enemies ran out of ammo?  Why are people even mentioning that?

Because it doesn't make any sense.  We're limited by how much ammo we have, but the CPU isn't.  Which means the computer can stand there and shoot you indefinitely.  I never liked it in other games and I don't like it here either.  Everyone (CPU included) should have to play by the same rules.  This is just my opinion, though.  I really don't like the ammo system.  Changes this game to Gear of War RPG and I don't know if that's a good thing.

So every enemy should also get three abilities and atleast two different types of rounds?

Your claims are ridiculous.  If this game "made sense" then someone would use a CAIN to instantly kill Shepard, and the Collectors wouldn't be stupid enough to run at you from a single front and in nice, broken waves.  They'd all rush you from behind and in front of you and overwhelm your team.

[blank1]

Corben158 wrote...

Because I have access to 3 guns and 2 of them run out very fast, and I have to run around looking for ammo. Me1 had a Perfect handle on this, Me1 was almost a perfect game and they decided it wasn't good enough and scrapped all the things that made it good besides the dialogue and cut scenes

ME1 was far from a perfect game... to most people at least. The game was fun, but the combat needed a lot of work... which they accomplished in ME2. The point of having weapons with limited ammo, and some more limited than others, is so that you think twice about wasting your limited resources. You can one-shot an enemy's HP, even bosses (Except a few), when their defenses are all down. So, you have the capacity to use your sniper rifle to kill like 10 people with single headshots, which is more in line of what a sniper should be like anyways. If you want more kills out of your sniper, grab the viper, which is 12 in a magazine and 48 in reserve. It has more kills available than the actual sniper, and if you aiim for the head especially, you have tons of kills.

It'd be lame if you had a Widow with 100 shots anyways -- one shot everything, easy game for the lulz.

[blank1]

KalosCast wrote...

blank1 wrote...

KalosCast wrote...

blank1 wrote...

The fact that you didn't see my refutation to that is pretty much damning evidence of your stupidity. I'll refute this new argument that you've fabricated as well.

There isn't an issue with heatsinks in that they "behave" like bullets. They only do so from you're own perspective. I think it'd be fairly standard protical to for a heatsink to store a certain amount of shots per canister -- you can shave off a grain from your block of metal to fire, and you have enough room in your heat sink to fire that 50 times before you need to switch the canister. How hard is that to comprehend?

The reason why guns have restricted ammo pools, despite the universal magazines, is because the game would be retardedly easy if you had a Widow Anti-Material rifle with 100 shots. I think you're just bad at games, TBH. The logic is simple, even for you. If you want to shoot your AR for 10 minutes straight, ME1 is still around brah.

Okay, lets' look at the Hand Cannon since I guess I have to explain how much of a drooling moron you are. And ONCE AGAIN I have no problem with limited ammo, just the fact that the current system doesn't make any goddamn logical sense...

According to the hand cannon, your heatsink can last 6 shots before overheating

You fire three shots and then eject the heatsink... your pool goes down by three shots even though you lost the entire 6-shot heatsink.

Therefore heatsinks behave like bullets. They don't even behave like clips. Game WITH bullets like Battlefield 2 and SWAT 4 have clips that behave more like heat-clips than Mass Effect and they're using real world tech. (Battlefield 2 you drop the entire magazine on the ground, SWAT 4 you store the old magazine and put a fresh one in, and rotate them)

Therefore, the heatsinks behave like bullets, not like heat-clips or heatsinks that would realistically cool down at some point.

You entirely missed my point.

Remember when I said on page 3 that hyper realism makes for a terrible game? Yeah I uderstand that when you reload with 15 shots left in a magazine, you don't magically get another 15 in your reserve ammo pool. However -- the point of the ammo system is not to be realistic becuase Bioware thinks sht like that is cool -- it's to create a better gameplay experience. I never said that the heatsink system wasn't a carbon copy of an ammo system -- it is. However, it's a way that fits into ME univers canon. Not smoothly, but it still works, and makes for better gameplay without fcking canon in the ass.

You can have your hyper realism. I'll take my fun game, kthx.

Also, I enjoy how you're arguing the straw man fallacy without even being aware of it. lolz

Yo dawg, we heard you like reading comprehension, so we added some comprehension to your reading so you can comprehend while you read. K brah?

So it sounds like we're both in agreement then, it's a system that works fine in gameplay that has ****ty writing. Glad we could finally come to this conclusion.

HAH! Now you're pretending that we agree! You're full of suprises, aren't you?

I never said it had shtty writing, I just said the trasition wasn't smooth from a canon perspective -- but it still works in canon. If there were like, 5 years, between ME1 and ME2 the heatsink system would fit in just perfect.

[Vaemer-Riit]

It really should work where the heatsink would cool over time slowly, but if you needed to continue shooting you could eject the heatsink and continue firing.



let the player cary 4-6 heatsinks and include the upgrade system from the first game.



IMHO thats the best way to make it fun and lore consistent.

[Railstay]

Sassymcgee wrote...

blank1 wrote...

Sassymcgee wrote...

blank1 wrote...

Sassymcgee wrote...

Because advances in technology should be advances, not a weird excuse to go from essentially infinite ammo to shoving ammo into your game. Don't call them heatsinks. It's ammo.

Read your codex on heatsinks and you'll see that thermal magazines are an upgrade the Alliance picked up fighting the Geth heritics. From a tactical perspective, having an immediate way to cooldown your weapon and keep up sustained fire is superior. I think people like you are just mad you can't just stick two frictionless materials in your assault rifle and just hold down the trigger forever now -- because that makes SO much sense.

I read the codex as soon as I saw the new system.

It's their excuse. If it was implemented as I said I'd understand why. It would still allow ME to have a unique system that demonstrates that it's actually in the future and that something major has changed. If you notice I said 'almost infinite' demonstrating my understanding of the flaw of the first one and its implementation. Tell me which would you rather have. Ammo, because this is what the game acts as. Or infinite ammo, and a system that actually prohibits holding down your mouse compared to HOLD DOWN "R" HOLD DOWN "R" HOLD DOWN "R" SWITCH WEAPONS HOLD DOWN....
Trust me. The way you describe my assumed reasoning for preferring the older system doesn't hold up. I thought the other required much more tactical thought than this current change? Why? Because as it stands ME was the only game with the system, and then ME2 implemented an ammo system and called it heatsink and said it was an advancement in technnology. 

Once again, it WOULD be if several things did not happen.

"You run out of heatsink, you can no longer fire one shot"
"Your gun never cools down, so the heat sinks act as bullets and clips"

It's ammo. It's not tactical, it's god damn in every other game. Even if it was some tactical and strategic system, it's in every other game and unoriginal and tried to act as such with a new name. Come on. I can understand preferring an ammo system, thats not my position. I'm simply stating I liked the old because I felt IT required more thinking and it was actually original and made sense in the universe and its point in time.

In your quest for a unique shooter experience, I think you're blinding yourself to what "tacitcal" really means. Tactical is definately not having an AR that you can shoot for 10 minutes straight, or a sniper that never runs out of ammo, so you can snipe a whole base of Geth without being in any trouble remotely. Just because it's an ammo system that many, many other games have used doesn't mean it isn't tactical. In fact, every "tactical" shooter uses ammuntion -- along with every twitch shooter.

And yes, I understand that the ME1 system was superior from our own perspective. But we need to remember that the game canon is always under a microscope -- things in game doesn't necessarily reflect the "actual" of the Mass Effect universe. From a canon perspective, perhaps the heatsinks work 10x better becase, in canon, maybe it took a weapon 2 minutes to cool down after expending a certain amount of shots.

Tactical is having to burst and be precise and having penalties if you rambo it. 

Tactical is having to place your rounds in specific locations because if you dont you will have to find ammo.

Both have their shades of strategy and maneuvers and lines of thought that play into what tactical means. I feel the old system was more tactical, because it didnt allow you to hold down your mouse button. You overheated, you switched weapons or waited. You decide which is better, and you decide what weapon if switching is more advantageous. I mentioned 'unique' not because I'm in some quest to find unique systems and damn the consequences, but because it was another advantage of the system, being able to have an experience that you generally dont have elsewhere.

I feel the old system was superior, and was more fitting to what the ME universe was. You add to that the 'we advanced technology so now you have an ammo system' and it only amplifies what my thoughts already would be.

I already stated how I believe BW could have the best of both worlds, and it seems to be the general consensus of most as implied with what their problems with the new system is.

It sounds like you didn't play much of the first Mass Effect.

It's very easy to tweak your weapons so they fire infinitely without having to worry about overheating.  My Infiltrator was able to spam his pistol forever, and my soldier was able to spam his AR forever too.  The problem with this sytem was, and it's very clear now that most of the people complaining about the new ammo system never played Mass Effect on anything harder than Normal, is that on the Hardcore and Insanity difficulties the game compensated for this by making enemies super durable.  It would take forever to take down organic mobs because the game knew you can adjust nearly all the guns in the game to fire an infinite stream of rounds, so in order to artificially inflate the difficulty, they'd take forever to kill because they'd pop Immunity, which you can stop in no way or form.  It was a very stupid system.

And people complaining about not being able to find ammunition is telling me that they are clearly not used to playing the game right.  So far I've beaten this game as an Infiltrator on Hardcore and Insanity, and out of all classes I should be the one scouring for ammo the most, yet it's never been a problem for me.  Why?  For one, I actually use different guns like you're supposed to.  It doesn't take long to figure out you need to switch your guns for different situations too, but apparently everyone on this forum thinks it's a great idea to spam your Heavy Pistol or SMG on every single enemy you see in the game.  If you realized that SMGs do huge damage to shields/biotics and HPs do huge damage on armor, guess what?  You SAVE AMMO!  Because it TAKES LESS AMMO TO KILL ENEMIES when you use the right gun for the right situation!

Modifié par Railstay, 04 février 2010 - 07:38 .

[KalosCast]

blank1 wrote...

HAH! Now you're pretending that we agree! You're full of suprises, aren't you?

I never said it had shtty writing, I just said the trasition wasn't smooth from a canon perspective -- but it still works in canon. If there were like, 5 years, between ME1 and ME2 the heatsink system would fit in just perfect.

So you're saying a heatsink system that behaves exactly like bullets being developed over 5 years (despite Shephard knowing exactly how to work one after just gaining consciousness) makes moee sense than a heatsink system that behaves exactly like bullets being developed over 2 years? Wut? And considering 2 years ago, people were  developing prototype tech that could alter heat buildup and discharge simply by minor gun modifications... this seems more like a step backwards. And still doesn't explain how heatsinks have magically lost their ability to cool down between then and now. It's just bad writing.

Modifié par KalosCast, 04 février 2010 - 07:36 .

[RiouHotaru]

Railstay wrote...

Sassymcgee wrote...

blank1 wrote...

Sassymcgee wrote...

blank1 wrote...

Sassymcgee wrote...

Because
advances in technology should be advances, not a weird excuse to go
from essentially infinite ammo to shoving ammo into your game. Don't
call them heatsinks. It's ammo.

Read
your codex on heatsinks and you'll see that thermal magazines are an
upgrade the Alliance picked up fighting the Geth heritics. From a
tactical perspective, having an immediate way to cooldown your weapon
and keep up sustained fire is superior. I think people like you are
just mad you can't just stick two frictionless materials in your
assault rifle and just hold down the trigger forever now -- because
that makes SO much sense.

I read the codex as soon as I saw the new system.

It's
their excuse. If it was implemented as I said I'd understand why. It
would still allow ME to have a unique system that demonstrates that
it's actually in the future and that something major has changed. If
you notice I said 'almost infinite' demonstrating my understanding of
the flaw of the first one and its implementation. Tell me which would
you rather have. Ammo, because this is what the game acts as. Or
infinite ammo, and a system that actually prohibits holding down your
mouse compared to
HOLD DOWN "R" HOLD DOWN "R" HOLD DOWN "R" SWITCH WEAPONS HOLD DOWN....
Trust
me. The way you describe my assumed reasoning for preferring the older
system doesn't hold up. I thought the other required much more tactical
thought than this current change? Why? Because as it stands ME was the
only game with the system, and then ME2 implemented an ammo system and
called it heatsink and said it was an advancement in technnology. 

Once again, it WOULD be if several things did not happen.

"You run out of heatsink, you can no longer fire one shot"
"Your gun never cools down, so the heat sinks act as bullets and clips"

It's
ammo. It's not tactical, it's god damn in every other game. Even if it
was some tactical and strategic system, it's in every other game and
unoriginal and tried to act as such with a new name. Come on. I can
understand preferring an ammo system, thats not my position. I'm simply
stating I liked the old because I felt IT required more thinking and it
was actually original and made sense in the universe and its point in
time. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/wizard.png

In
your quest for a unique shooter experience, I think you're blinding
yourself to what "tacitcal" really means. Tactical is definately not
having an AR that you can shoot for 10 minutes straight, or a sniper
that never runs out of ammo, so you can snipe a whole base of Geth
without being in any trouble remotely. Just because it's an ammo system
that many, many other games have used doesn't mean it isn't tactical.
In fact, every "tactical" shooter uses ammuntion -- along with every
twitch shooter.

And yes, I understand that the ME1 system was
superior from our own perspective. But we need to remember that the
game canon is always under a microscope -- things in game doesn't
necessarily reflect the "actual" of the Mass Effect universe. From a
canon perspective, perhaps the heatsinks work 10x better becase, in
canon, maybe it took a weapon 2 minutes to cool down after expending a
certain amount of shots.

Tactical is having to burst and be precise and having penalties if you rambo it. 

Tactical is having to place your rounds in specific locations because if you dont you will have to find ammo.

Both
have their shades of strategy and maneuvers and lines of thought that
play into what tactical means. I feel the old system was more tactical,
because it didnt allow you to hold down your mouse button. You
overheated, you switched weapons or waited. You decide which is better,
and you decide what weapon if switching is more advantageous. I
mentioned 'unique' not because I'm in some quest to find unique systems
and damn the consequences, but because it was another advantage of the
system, being able to have an experience that you generally dont have
elsewhere.

I feel the old system was superior, and was more
fitting to what the ME universe was. You add to that the 'we advanced
technology so now you have an ammo system' and it only amplifies what
my thoughts already would be.

I already stated how I believe BW
could have the best of both worlds, and it seems to be the general
consensus of most as implied with what their problems with the new
system is.

You didn't play much of Mess Effect 1, did you? 

It
doesn't a PhD in mass acceleration to figure out how to tweak your
weapons to fire infinitely without having to worry about overheating. 
My Infiltrator was able to spam his pistol forever, and my soldier was
able to spam his AR forever too.  The problem with this sytem was, and
it's very clear now that most of the people complaining about the new
ammo system never played Mass Effect on anything harder than Normal, is
that on the Hardcore and Insanity difficulties the game compensated for
this by making enemies super durable.  It would take forever to take
down organic mobs because the game knew you can adjust nearly all the
guns in the game to fire an infinite stream of rounds, so in order to
artificially inflate the difficulty, they'd take forever to kill
because they'd pop Immunity, which you can stop in no way or form.  It
was a very stupid system.

And people complaining about not being
able to find ammunition is telling me that they are clearly not used to
playing the game right.  So far I've beaten this game as an Infiltrator
on Hardcore and Insanity, and out of all classes I should be the one
scouring for ammo the most, yet it's never been a problem for me. 
Why?  For one, I actually use different guns like you're supposed to. 
It doesn't take long to figure out you need to switch your guns for
different situations too, but apparently everyone on this forum thinks
it's a great idea to spam your Heavy Pistol or SMG on every single
enemy you see in the game.  If you realized that SMGs do huge damage to
shields/biotics and HPs do huge damage on armor, guess what?  You
SAVE AMMO!  Because it TAKES LESS AMMO TO KILL ENEMIES when you use the
right gun for the right situation!

This.  The
harder difficulties on ME1 also gave enemies invisible resistances and
immunities, which made using skills my Overload/Damping/Sabotage
impossible, as the effect wouldn't stop enemies from spamming Shield
Boost or Immunity.  Practically the only way to deal with immunity was
poison rounds, and that STILL took forever.

So I'll spell it out
nice and simply.  You can NOT use an unlimited ammo system of ANY kind
in a game where the enemies aren't durable.  Enemies in ME2 are
surprisingly fragile once you get past their resistances, and sometimes
even with their resistances they can be slain easily (Assassin Cloak
+ Widow anyone?).  The combat system and the way enemies operate in ME2
makes the use of anything but limited ammunition broken as hell.

Besides,
the devs said before in several interviews that they tried and tested
hybrid systems, and felt the ammo system as it stands worked the best. 
So it's not as though they didn't look at alternatives. ../../../images/forum/emoticons/angry.png
images/spacer.gifimages/spacer.gif

Modifié par RiouHotaru, 04 février 2010 - 07:42 .

[Zoe Dedweth]

Put it this way - your average soldier in the ME universe got stuck with assault rifle you started with. Tell me - how long can you sustain fire with your Assault rifle with no mods in ME 1. Just the starting rifle.



Now compare how much sustained fire you can put down with the starting assault rifle in Mass Effect 2. You can barely even compare it. If you put two squads of soldiers against each other one armed with ME1 rifles and the other with ME2 rifles, the ME 2 squad would win because they put MUCH more firepower down the range quicker. It's not practical to spend 50 000 Credits per rifle + gods know how much for each Frictionless material to equip a army. So having cheaper rifles that put out more firepower is better.



Besides weapon cooldown in ME lore took a while (even if only 10-20 secs) where trained soldiers do it in a 1 sec time period. Still superior.

[CrossFenix]

I think the new heat sink system is fantastic, I stuck with the same weapon almost all the time in ME1 and now Im always switching. Combat is faster, smoother, and it feels more like the guns are actually packing a punch, not just tossing out light and overheating... Honestly the old system has aged so terribly that i dread combat sequences when I play ME1 but in the sequel i feel equally invested in firefights and conversations. Awesome.

[Amethyst Deceiver]

i think the idea of the removeable heat sink is great, but i would have preferred it to have simply replace overheat, rather than act like a ammo magazine.

[ABCoLD]

Railstay wrote...

And people complaining about not being able to find ammunition is telling me that they are clearly not used to playing the game right.

lol, you sir, win the game.

(They don't get it cause they're DOING IT WRONG!)

[Sharn01]

Heat sinks where not needed and they are not what was broken with ME.



The problem with the origonal ME was high end weapon's that never over heated, enemies with ton's of hp's, and character's so sturdy they could rush a field of 20 enemies firing on them with little damage.



Cooling would have worked just fine in ME2 with the low HP of the enemies and player and low defense, the weapons would just have had a heating system that forced you to take a shot to two, or a few bursts with AR's and then get back behind cover.

It could actually be even far more tactical then clips if done properly, because if you go nuts and over heat your weapon the enemies could be programmed to rush you while your weapon cools, forcing you to die or fall back, and possibly still die if you cant recover from the mistake.

[Raezaiel]

run out of ammo way too fast and theres no option to keep firing the old way after you run out, which would make the most sense.

on insanity at least....

Modifié par Raezaiel, 04 février 2010 - 08:46 .

[LazurusTest Subject]

I'm a little annoyed about the break in consistency but the mechanics work much better.

[notphrog]

I kind of like the reloading. It seems more efficient to eject an over-capacity heat sink than to let it cool off during combat. Lore preserved.



But maybe it should be optional. So if you run out of thermal clips you have to wait for the gun to cool down. That would help the lack of sniper and shotgun ammo.

[Proud Larry]

I  LOVE the new ammo system! I just wish that some guns had higher ammo capacity, or that ammunition slowly regenerated (like the playtesting version).

[Zemore]

i like the new ammo thing for one in the orginal game bosses keep hitting u with stuff that instanly overheats your gun and it doesnt cool down for like 2 whole minutes and as an adept your powers are then almost useless (cept warp which wasent that great in the first game imo)

[Killian113]

I prefer the heat sink ejection over the cooldown but I think there should be more ways to increase your ammo capacity during the game.



I think if they did that it would improve people's opinion of the system.

[notphrog]

I still think a combo of both systems would be best. Plus, sabotage from the first game could make a comeback. It would force you to eject the thermal clip or let it cool down.

[Mighty_BOB_cnc]

RE: Lore:

I agree that this seems like a step backwards. BUT, the pacing of the combat is more fun. I think a hybrid system where you still have a passive heat sink as an emergency backup should you run out of thermal clips would be better than the implementation in ME1 or ME2 though. The passive heat sink would be prone to overheating and cooldown periods and you could also work in that the weapon's onboard computer limits the firing rate as well to slow the buildup of heat. This would give incentive for the player to still pick up thermal clips because they could instantly take their heat to zero, and in addition it would also allow them to fire faster.



RE: System that encourages weapon swapping:

You shouldn't be encouraged to swap weapons because you run out of ammo. You should be encouraged to swap weapons based on the merits/limitations of the weapons. Shotguns for close engagements, sniper rifles for long-range engagements, etc..



RE: Limiting enemy ammo as well:

The majority of other games out there don't limit enemy ammo and I don't expect this game should either. I think the main reason people are bringing this up is because of the rather small carrying capacity the player has for spare (supposedly universal) heatsinks. If they could carry maybe 20% more (before that 10% upgrade), people would probably say less because they would run into fewer situations where they run out of ammo for a weapon or two.

Sure there are usually a decent amount of heatsinks laying around when all your enemies are dead and it's safe to rummage around, but I mean come on, are you really going to run out into an open area while under fire to grab a heatsink an enemy dropped and then run back to your cover?



RE: Hold down left mouse for 10 minutes:

I did this on Pinnacle station for 37 minutes once actually, in the survival mode with some Spectre master gear and frictionless materials. Definitely a broken system; hence why I advocate for the best of both worlds. Even though it got pretty hectic at times with 5 Geth Destroyers + a dozen troopers coming at me, what eventually caused me to end the round wasn't overheating or powers running out or just getting overwhelmed. It was my wrist starting to hurt like mad, so I called it quits and let the enemy kill me. And to think I only got 2500 XP for it.



RE: Barrel rifling:

Mass accelerators do not need barrel rifling. The entire principle is that the projectile is accelerated to such a high speed that it does not need to have spin imparted upon it for flight stability (although they could probably impart spin on it anyways with rotating magnetic or mass effect fields as it travels down the barrel anyways). Rifling is used with chemical propellants.

[EDarkness]

Railstay wrote...

EDarkness wrote...

Because it doesn't make any sense.  We're limited by how much ammo we have, but the CPU isn't.  Which means the computer can stand there and shoot you indefinitely.  I never liked it in other games and I don't like it here either.  Everyone (CPU included) should have to play by the same rules.  This is just my opinion, though.  I really don't like the ammo system.  Changes this game to Gear of War RPG and I don't know if that's a good thing.

So every enemy should also get three abilities and atleast two different types of rounds?

Your claims are ridiculous.  If this game "made sense" then someone would use a CAIN to instantly kill Shepard, and the Collectors wouldn't be stupid enough to run at you from a single front and in nice, broken waves.  They'd all rush you from behind and in front of you and overwhelm your team.

It's a game.  I know this.  However, the issue here is that the player can run out of ammo (and fairly often...especially if you like using the pistol or the assault rifle).  Which means that you have to spend time running around looking for ammo, and if you are a Vanguard and run out of shotgun and pistol ammo, you're SOL.  Neither one holds much ammo in the first place and there aren't many ways to improve the number of "bullets" for each gun.  Since the computer can basically stand there and shoot you indefinitely, you're SOL.  So the computer comes prepared for a long fight, but Mr. (Ms.) "kick ass and take names" Sheppard doesn't do the same?  If the computer could run out of ammo as well, then at least you could hope for a fist fight (knife fight) or maybe you could outlast them.  Considering the fact that there's really no way to survive without cover, running in when you run out of ammo to clock someone over the head (or using biotics) is basically a suicide mission. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm basically okay with having to have ammo, but at least give people enough to be able to miss a few (especially with trying to shoot moving targets) or wear down a mob's shields and not be boned.  I like to use a pistol (use a pistol in just about every FPS game out there), because I like accurate headshots, but I can't really enjoy it because I'm always worried about running out of ammo.  I've basically switched to the machine gun because it's the only gun you can really use where you don't run out of ammo really fast.  There has to be a better balance between the two systems.

[Malidinus]

I also viewed the thermal clips as a minor annoyance which didn't really add anything positive to the game. The game was absolutely swimming in those clips so there really was no shortage of them but at the same time you constantly had to pick them up. Their overall effect was that they made the game a little less playable. They were an annoyance although a minor one.



Also.. even though I liked the sniper rifle the most I think the weapon variety didn't add pretty much anything to the game.Yes, the weapons were slightly different but not enough. The game would have been essentially the same game even with a single weapon, no research, no character levels, no thermal clips and so on. Way too much corner cutting on many aspects of the game left most features quite hollow. Exactly what I would have expected of a console game. It's just that I bought the game for PC and would never ever buy a console or console games. :-(

[Railstay]

Zoe Dedweth wrote...

Put it this way - your average soldier in the ME universe got stuck with assault rifle you started with. Tell me - how long can you sustain fire with your Assault rifle with no mods in ME 1. Just the starting rifle.

Now compare how much sustained fire you can put down with the starting assault rifle in Mass Effect 2. You can barely even compare it. If you put two squads of soldiers against each other one armed with ME1 rifles and the other with ME2 rifles, the ME 2 squad would win because they put MUCH more firepower down the range quicker. It's not practical to spend 50 000 Credits per rifle + gods know how much for each Frictionless material to equip a army. So having cheaper rifles that put out more firepower is better.

Besides weapon cooldown in ME lore took a while (even if only 10-20 secs) where trained soldiers do it in a 1 sec time period. Still superior.

Well lorewise it could be consistent with a burst in kinetic shield development.  Having ejectable thermal clips means a weapon can fire much more powerful rounds without overheating, if all you needed to do was insert a fresh clip to cool the weapon down.  That means you'd kill much faster than another group who's using infinite ammunition, but can't get rid of the heat efficiently enough for each round to do significant damage.  It'd be like trying to fire on a tank with a BB gun.

A retcon would've been much cleaner though, since it doesn't explain how some of the more poor mercenaries or Jacob's father's crew are able to have access to these newer guns.