140 réponses à ce sujet

[Phel Shepard]

I have unlimited ammo in my game, and I also modded the enemies and made them way harder so it balances it out. Much funner imho because now I don't need to worry about ammo, just plain 'ol gameplay.

[King_Rob]

Sibbwolf wrote...

There's nothing tactical about that. unlimited ammo means unlimited ammo, you've removed the constrait that force tactical decision. Now once again you can sit back, using the most inappropiate weapon and still win.

And yes, there are some classes that only have two weapons, but they can't just use the least appropiate of the pair all the time and expect to win the game like in ME1. In ME2, the player has to choose weapons carefully (tactic) or use their powers (which again has constraits, again forcing tactics).

I'm not certain why you say I'm using the most inappropriate weapon.  The lack of ammo for the most appropriate weapon forces me to use a less appropriate weapon.  The sniper rifle, particularly for an infiltrator, is by far the most appropriate weapon to use except for certain up close situations.  The lack of ammo forces me to use bad tactics rather than sound ones.  Logically speaking, I think Shepard's first tactic should be to buy a couple of belt pouches or a backpack to hold a few more of these heatsinks.

Lorewise, 2 years? Did you catch the part of the laws of physics, or did you ignore that? The weapons in ME1 cooled down far too quickly considering the environments they were often used in. If the new weapons offer serious advantages that vastly outweigh the disadvantages, people will take ithem, and quickly. If you don't believe me here, a real life example is the evolution of battleships in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Your argument fights itself here.  Either they made a mistake in ME1 and the guns never should have cooled that quickly, OR they just decided to arbitrarily add these cooling rods and sell inferior weapons (which would make no sense because no one would buy them).  There is no doubt that the guns in ME1, if they worked the way they do in ME1, would be FAR superior to the guns in ME2. 

Basically there is no argument for the switching of the ammo system other than BioWare saying "Hey, I think we should make them run around and pick up ammo".

[ThePatriot101]

Actually, I have a scientific explanation for the switch to thermal clips that ISN'T lore-dependent.



When you have something metallic that goes from hot to cold repeatedly that tends to weaken it over time and succumb to damage. Looking at how the guns in ME1 couldn't vent enough to prevent an overheat that meant that all the internal components simply absorbed the heat. Now certainly in-game you don't usually have a weapon that completely malfunctions or blows up in your face, but over time with repeated overheats the components will sustain damage and will need to be replaced or repaired before long.



Thermal clips correct that issue by serving as heat sinks for the whole weapon, allowing the individual pieces to function without needing to be subjected to hot-cold shifts like in ME1. It therefore increases the survivability of the weapon's components, the reliability of the weapon, and the lifetime of the weapon.

[Sibbwolf]

King_Rob wrote...

Sibbwolf wrote...

There's nothing tactical about that. unlimited ammo means unlimited ammo, you've removed the constrait that force tactical decision. Now once again you can sit back, using the most inappropiate weapon and still win.

And yes, there are some classes that only have two weapons, but they can't just use the least appropiate of the pair all the time and expect to win the game like in ME1. In ME2, the player has to choose weapons carefully (tactic) or use their powers (which again has constraits, again forcing tactics).

I'm not certain why you say I'm using the most inappropriate weapon.

You want to sit and use only the sniper rifle. Its self evident.

The lack of ammo for the most appropriate weapon forces me to use a less appropriate weapon.  The sniper rifle, particularly for an infiltrator, is by far the most appropriate weapon to use except for certain up close situations.

Then you don't play right, sorry.

The snifle rifle is not good against shields or barriers. If you are using it in those situations, then you are using the least appropiate weapon (meaning you are wasting ammo).

The lack of ammo forces me to use bad tactics rather than sound ones.

No it dosen't. It tells you that you've been using the wrong tactics.

 

Your argument fights itself here.  Either they made a mistake in ME1 and the guns never should have cooled that quickly, OR they just decided to arbitrarily add these cooling rods and sell inferior weapons (which would make no sense because no one would buy them).  There is no doubt that the guns in ME1, if they worked the way they do in ME1, would be FAR superior to the guns in ME2. 

Did you read the codex in ME2, or just ignore it?

I'm guessing the later. ME1 was broken, given what you believe "tactical". Sorry.

[hYBRYDcOBRA]

You cant say someone isn't playing the game right or wrong JUST because a player may want to only use one or two weapons at a time. What if im a Vanguard. What if i only like using the shotgun all the time in the first ME and wanted to carry that combat style over to ME2. I can't. Why? Is it because I suck with my shotgun/barrier combo? Not necessarily. It has to do with the limited ammo capacity for said weapon and limited clips on the ground to replenish said weapons ammo. For example, I LOVED using the Hand Cannon when I upgraded my regular handgun, but alas, I couldnt use it as much as I WANTED because of the poor ammo capacity it came with. So I HAD to use my regular handgun (which I do prefer by the way), not because I can't shoot worth a s***, not because I wanted to be more "tactical" whatever that means, but because the limited ammo in the game FORCES me to use said weapon, instead of giving me a choice, which is what it should be doing in the first place.

[King_Rob]

Sibbwolf wrote...

Then you don't play right, sorry.

The snifle rifle is not good against shields or barriers. If you are using it in those situations, then you are using the least appropiate weapon (meaning you are wasting ammo).

So you're saying that using overload on shields, or warp on a biotic barrier, then finishing them off with a head shot with the sniper rifle is wrong?  Not to mention you can switch to an ammo type that is quite effective against shields, or an ammo type that is effective agains biotic barriers.  OR, if you're so eager to use the SMG, how about having one of your teammates advance and take out the enemy's shield/biotic barrier then you head shot them.

Just because YOU can't come up with sound tactics that don't involve charging with a sub-machine gun, doesn't mean I can't.

[Aidunno]

With any game it's a case of playing the game to match the developer's idea of play. Not the developer having to adapt to everyone else's idea of how to play the game.

[Frotality]

patch- uhh....not gonna happen, this is something to suggest for ME3, not a patch


mod- damn you pc players and your superiority in every capacity......

[Sibbwolf]

King_Rob wrote...

Sibbwolf wrote...

Then you don't play right, sorry.

The snifle rifle is not good against shields or barriers. If you are using it in those situations, then you are using the least appropiate weapon (meaning you are wasting ammo).

So you're saying that using overload on shields, or warp on a biotic barrier, then finishing them off with a head shot with the sniper rifle is wrong?  Not to mention you can switch to an ammo type that is quite effective against shields, or an ammo type that is effective agains biotic barriers.  OR, if you're so eager to use the SMG, how about having one of your teammates advance and take out the enemy's shield/biotic barrier then you head shot them.

Just because YOU can't come up with sound tactics that don't involve charging with a sub-machine gun, doesn't mean I can't.

I think you missed the point. There are people saying they run out of ammo far too quickly, and they want to use only the sniper rifle. Oh wait, that was you always going for the heashot..

Also bear in mind there are such things as "overkill". Some enemies, once their shields/barriers are down, are extremely weak and a headshot or otherwise from a sniper rifle is still wasting ammo.

hYBRYDcOBRA wrote...

You cant say someone isn't playing
the game right or wrong JUST because a player may want to only use one
or two weapons at a time. What if im a Vanguard. What if i only like
using the shotgun all the time in the first ME and wanted to carry that
combat style over to ME2. I can't. Why? Is it because I suck with my
shotgun/barrier combo? Not necessarily. It has to do with the limited
ammo capacity for said weapon and limited clips on the ground to
replenish said weapons ammo. For example, I LOVED using the Hand Cannon
when I upgraded my regular handgun, but alas, I couldnt use it as much
as I WANTED because of the poor ammo capacity it came with. So I HAD to
use my regular handgun (which I do prefer by the way), not because I
can't shoot worth a s***, not because I wanted to be more "tactical"
whatever that means, but because the limited ammo in the game FORCES me
to use said weapon, instead of giving me a choice, which is what it
should be doing in the first place.

I believe I've said before the system is still flawed in some respects. Some guns need a larger ammo pool. But that doesn't explain the person who wants to use only the sniper rifle, or people using the sniper rifle on very weak targets "at anything other than extremely close range".

Modifié par Sibbwolf, 12 février 2010 - 08:46 .

[Sibbwolf]

dammit, double post, wrong button

Modifié par Sibbwolf, 12 février 2010 - 08:45 .

[jimbo vision]

 Mass Efect is the best game I have ever played. (I know my spelling is horid, beeing deslexic stinks) 

and I fell that to maney "improvments" have destroed ME2. one of them being the ammo. 
to mutch of the game has changed. its no longer mass efect. its now call of sci fi shootem up efect no thinking game. 

the combat senerios are intence. that was an improvment. but ME 2 is the equevelent of making KotOR 2 have in all new combo moves and fast paced fist pounding action.

dont turn are beloved bioware RPGs into lebotimized action games.  

[Captain Jazz]

HelterSkelter89 wrote...

even if your accuracy is 100% you will run out of ammo at some point. the sniper only holds 10 shots and the pistol 24. after establishing canon in the first game that the overheat mechanism instead of a tradition (and crappy) ammo system, it's a slap in the face to change things and go to a system of using ammo.

Playing from the perspective of an infiltrator, have your SMG loaded with disruptor ammo and maybe a teammate with overload, take out their shields or warp ammo (if you've chosen that skill) and a teammate with warp take out their barriers, switch to sniper, incinerate any armour that may be present, take the shot, dead. 10 shots will go a long way, especially when you can vanish, move up to new cover and pick up a few more heatsinks without anybody noticing.

Btw, if you give me a choice between a gun that I will never have to reload but may overheat for a long time for no apparent reason, usually when it is most important that it does not (ever been overloaded in ME1?) and a gun which I do have to reload but which will never overheat? I'll learn to keep an eye on my ammo count and go with the reliable one.

King_Rob wrote...

I guess I could also bring up the fact
that no one else in the universe seems to need these heatsinks to
continuously fire their weapons, but unlimited ammo for your buddies
and enemies is pretty common in shooters so I can't really have too
much beef with that.

Watch your teammates... (I'd suggest watching the enemy, but you generally can't since they're too busy shooting at you.) They're reloading all the time, clearly they just know to make sure they have heatsinks to hand.

Modifié par Captain Jazz, 12 février 2010 - 09:52 .

[Ostuni418]

Don't **** about ammo, the game is more intense with the ammo system, it puts that little fear of "wow, if I don't think my strategy out and aim sloppily, I might actually die" into you. As far as someone using JUST ONE GUN like the originator of this post does, it's just in bad taste, hell, my favorite weapon is the quick fire sniper rifle, but whenever I run out of ammo I don't **** and cry "I WANT UNLIMITED AMMO!!" I switch to my pistol, or the new long-range shotgun (which, if you are iffy about it, don't be, this weapon completes the vangaurd arsenal, the reason why is with some other shotguns you can get within point blank, range fire off 3 shots and the enemy is still not dead, with this, you can use Charge and not be afraid on any other enemies killing you too quickly, not to mention the "long range" feature is REAL AND NOTICEABLE)............. digressed WAY TOO FAR.... or I use powers. Learn the ins and outs of another weapon or power... diversify a little bit for god's sake...

[King_Rob]

Sibbwolf wrote...

I think you missed the point. There are people saying they run out of ammo far too quickly, and they want to use only the sniper rifle. Oh wait, that was you always going for the heashot..

Also bear in mind there are such things as "overkill". Some enemies, once their shields/barriers are down, are extremely weak and a headshot or otherwise from a sniper rifle is still wasting ammo.

I think YOU missed the point.  If they hadn't implemented this stupid ammo system, I wouldn't have to change to more dangerous tactics.  Yes, stupid.  Why would ANYONE trade in their unlimited ammo sniper rifle for one you have to carry around bullets for that are bigger than modern sniper rifle shells?  They'd be better off just using sniper rifle technology from today as the bullets for the rifle are much more compact so you can carry more.  By the END of ME1, with the rifle I had, I could shoot faster than the sniper rifle I'm using in this game and NEVER run out of ammo.

Even if you took the codex entry on face value, they would at least build the new guns as a hybrid in which they still fire unlimited as the old ones did, but you can add in a heatsink in order to fire a bit faster.  Face it, someone designing the game said "Let's make them use ammo" and then directed someone else to write a codex entry "explaining" the transition.  Not to mention their implementation of the ammo system isn't logically sound.

For anyone else arguing how much "better" it is, it isn't better, it's just more familiar since almost every other shooter works the same way.  If there's one thing I've learned, it's that people HATE change, no matter how much improvement comes along with it.

[Sibbwolf]

King_Rob wrote...

I think YOU missed the point.  If they hadn't implemented this stupid ammo system, I wouldn't have to change to more dangerous tactics.  Yes, stupid.

You still have yet to provide a real argument beyond "I want to use my sniper rifle at anything other than extremely close range".

Why would ANYONE trade in their unlimited ammo sniper rifle for one you have to carry around bullets for that are bigger than modern sniper rifle shells?

You're not loading bullets, you're loading a heatsink.

By the END of ME1, with the rifle I had, I could shoot faster than the sniper rifle I'm using in this game and NEVER run out of ammo.

A good summary of the 'broken' mechanics of the first game. Well done.

Even if you took the codex entry on face value, they would at least build the new guns as a hybrid in which they still fire unlimited as the old ones did, but you can add in a heatsink in order to fire a bit faster.

This is why I asked you to actually read, I already mentioned this! In fact, I said it's what I want to see, although I recognise it'd be very hard to program.

 

Face it, someone designing the game said "Let's make them use ammo"

That's far from a revelation.

and then directed someone else to write a codex entry "explaining" the transition.  Not to mention their implementation of the ammo system isn't logically sound.

because it's not the ammo you're changing, but a heatsink?

the flaws are that
(1) there should still be an internal heatsink, the efficiency of which is entirely dependant on the environment (see the complicated programming coming into play yet?)
(2) "universal" heatsinks should be just that (and as such, a much larger pool would be needed)
(3) the codex fails to determine what happens to these 'expendable' heatsinks.

For anyone else arguing how much "better" it is, it isn't better, it's just more familiar since almost every other shooter works the same way.

while the second part of your sentence is a fact, the first part is purely opinion. You need to realise that. 

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that people HATE change, no matter how much improvement comes along with it.

Err, looking in a mirror? Sorry, I'd accept unltd ammo in a early 80s game, or an MMORPG, but not so readily in a solo RPG. While I understand the appeal, it's terribly immersion breaking especially when the explanation for it is implausible.

Modifié par Sibbwolf, 12 février 2010 - 03:12 .

[Darth Obvious]

Yeah, I can't imagine going back the the cheesy unlimited ammo garbage. If ammo is so scarce, according to some of these mooks, then why do I always seem to have plenty of it?

[Sibbwolf]

I can't believe people think talking about their faster, infinite 'ammo' sniper rifle is going to help convince people that the old system is 'better'.

[PT.Vohnsen]

Personaly i never had problems with ammo.



Trainers can be found for unlimited ammo.



But i think it would ruin the game... IMO.

[Akimb0]

Why do people still think that the guns in ME2 don't have infinite ammo? The guns are exactly the same as in ME1, only the heat removal system has supposedly been "upgraded" after examining Geth tech to be more efficient.

1) It's not more efficient.

2) It's a step backwards in technology.

3) The weapons work exactly the same. They shave off a fragment of metal, increase it's mass and fire it a speed suitable for the range you fire at. So both are technically "infinite ammo". However the weapons in ME1 didn't have expendable heatsinks. They just overheated. Weapons in ME2 when they overheat, eject a heat sink to be able to fire immediately. However they seem to have lost the internal heat sink. Meaning while you will never run out of ammo, you can run out of heatsinks. This is clearly an inferior weapon design. The clear solution would have been to have the "heat level" from ME1 and then eject a heatsink (or have the choice to) if your weapon overheated. I think this is how it should have worked.

4) The heatsinks are supposed to be universal. This is clearly not so in the game, despite the lore stating it is how they work.

5) This leads to the conclusion, that the heat sink idea is simply a contrived, poorly thought out excuse to force an "ammo" (heatsink) system onto us.

6) How it changes gameplay is irrelevant. However for those people saying "It makes you think tactically" that's not really true. All it does is slow down combat.

7) I never found myself running out of ammo (heatsinks), I just found the whole system utterly stupid and a large step back in both gameplay and ME lore.

8) This is another example of how they (Bioware) should have taken the system from ME1 and improved upon it, instead of listening to the whiners, then ripping it out and replacing it with something as contrived as the "heat sink" system.

Modifié par Akimb0, 12 février 2010 - 03:35 .

[Sibbwolf]

Akimb0 wrote...

1) It's not more efficient.

In direct comparison of the two games, you're right. That dosen't really help though, if people think the system in ME1 was 'broken'. (I'm trying to stick to using those marks, assume they're always there if I forget).

2) It's a step backwards in technology.

I'd argue it's sideways in terms of lore and technology, but again, compared to ME1... and there-in lies the problem. If the ME1 system is 'broken', how to fix it?

4) The heatsinks are supposed to be universal. This is clearly not so in the game, despite the lore stating it is how they work.

Needs fixing.

5) This leads to the conclusion, that the heat sink idea is simply a contrived, poorly thought out excuse to force an "ammo" (heatsink) system onto us.

And if they not only fix it (make the sinks truly universal, player always leaves ship at max 'ammo' capacity), but say, double the 'ammo' pool?

8) This is another example of how they (Bioware) should have taken the system from ME1 and improved upon it, instead of listening to the whiners, then ripping it out and replacing it with something as contrived as the "heat sink" system.

I still think some sort of balanced hybrid system is best.

[Dethateer]

Akimb0 wrote...

4) The heatsinks are supposed to be universal. This is clearly not so in the game, despite the lore stating it is how they work.

*sigh*
For the over 9000th time... that is PURELY A GAMEPLAY MECHANIC. If you want to know why you can't take clips from the ammo pool of one weapon and use them in another's, then go play Deus Ex: Invisible War. Or pay attention: BECAUSE THEN WHEN YOU WOULD RUN OUT OF AMMO FOR ONE WEAPON, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE ANY OF THEM. You'd be stuck without a single round.

[danien.grey]

Personally, I have not found myself short of ammo on multiple hardcore and insanity playthroughs. The ammo system does not bother me at all.



You know what I usually do when I do not like the mechanics of a game? I stop playing it and no longer support the company that produces what I deem to be "garbage".



It is quite obvious that opinions are split on the matter, with a slightly larger portion of users saying they do not mind the mechanic or find it better than the previous installment that Bioware released.



In light of this I would realise it's not worth my time to post rants on forums about game mechanics (especially if they're actually popular with the majority of game owners). Ultimately game companies will cater to what the majority of users like and I would postulate that this particular ammo system is here to stay.



How does that saying go again? I believe it is "acta est fabula" (The Drama has been acted out)? We can see from the various posts that opinion is clearly split and without a large consensus from the community Bioware won't change the ammo system. Further discussion of this topic would only serve to be inane with various users pontificating about the merits (or demerits) of the ammo system.



Is it really worth our time?

[LoweGear]

Given that nobody on either side of the fence will yield to each other's arguments at this point, I'll just offer up some suggestions on how an unlimited ammo mechanic might be implemented without breaking the game for those who don't like it:

Make unlimited ammo an ACHIEVEMENT REWARD.

Basically, the idea is that once you've completed a certain gameplay achievement, you can get access to the option of having unlimited ammo for your weapons, possibly an option under "Gameplay" in the Esc Menu. That way those who want to have unlimited ammo can have it, while the ones who like the extra challenge can keep it disabled.

An example of such a system can be found in Resident Evil 5: You needed to upgrade an individual weapon to its maximum level, and spend game points in order to unlock unlimited ammo in a particular weapon, then you have the option of whether you'd like your playthrough to allow for weapons with unlimited ammo. In a game like Resident Evil where the challenge is on the scarcity of ammo, making unlimited ammo a reward encourages players to EARN the right to it.

Of course, such a complex system of fully upgrading weapons and spending game points is unnecessary in ME2: You could make it so unlimited ammo would apply to all your primary weapons once unlocked, and the option would simply make the reserve ammo on all your weapons infinite, so while you still need to reload your weapon after finishing a clip, you'd have an unlimited supply of heatsinks at your disposal.

A seperate achievement can be used to unlock unlimited ammo for Heavy Weapons. In RE5, unlocking unlimited ammo for the Rocket Launcher required a player to complete the entire game in under 5 hours. I don't think that's possible with ME2, but the point is that for Heavy Weapons the requirement for unlocking unlimited ammo for it would be much more difficult than unlocking unlimited ammo on your primary weapons.

Thoughts?

Modifié par LoweGear, 12 février 2010 - 04:00 .

[Akimb0]

Sibbwolf wrote...

Akimb0 wrote...

1) It's not more efficient.

In direct comparison of the two games, you're right. That dosen't really help though, if people think the system in ME1 was 'broken'. (I'm trying to stick to using those marks, assume they're always there if I forget).

2) It's a step backwards in technology.

I'd argue it's sideways in terms of lore and technology, but again, compared to ME1... and there-in lies the problem. If the ME1 system is 'broken', how to fix it?

4) The heatsinks are supposed to be universal. This is clearly not so in the game, despite the lore stating it is how they work.

Needs fixing.

5) This leads to the conclusion, that the heat sink idea is simply a contrived, poorly thought out excuse to force an "ammo" (heatsink) system onto us.

And if they not only fix it (make the sinks truly universal, player always leaves ship at max 'ammo' capacity), but say, double the 'ammo' pool?

8) This is another example of how they (Bioware) should have taken the system from ME1 and improved upon it, instead of listening to the whiners, then ripping it out and replacing it with something as contrived as the "heat sink" system.

I still think some sort of balanced hybrid system is best.

Amazing. I wasn't actually expecting a rational reply considering how people act on these forums.

I think most people considered ME1 systems "broken" because they don't even understand how or why the weapons worked as they did. Of course, there were balance issues. However just because something isn't balanced, certainly doesn't mean it's broken.

The solution would have been reasonably simple imo:

1) Weapons have the 'heat level' as in ME1.

2) If this heat level is reached, there's either a 6 second cooldown (the longest cooldown was ~6 seconds in ME1 iirc) or you pop out a heatsink and replace. Instantly cooling the weapon, which takes 1-2 seconds as in ME2.

3) With the new ammo system, there would have been no way to make a weapon that would never overheat. Testing to balance how much you could fire before overheating occured would of course have needed to be done. However if people were sensible, fired in small bursts or single shots then the weapon would not (should not) overheat and you would not need to replace the heat sinks. If you got jumped or caught of guard. e.g. "husk swarm! omg!" You could spray and pray your assault rifle for example and you'd be saved by the heatsinks system, as you'd be able to rapidly cool the weapon to continue firing. i.e. the heatsinks would be making a real improvement to the weapon, instead of being a silly contrived ammo system.

So to sum up: A hybrid system would have been a much better idea.


My new slogan: "Improve don't remove!"

I think ME2 would have been a better game if they'd designed it with that motto in mind. They would have satisfied both "crowds" of gamers.

Dethateer wrote...

Akimb0 wrote...

4) The heatsinks are supposed to be universal. This is clearly not so in the game, despite the lore stating it is how they work.

*sigh*
For
the over 9000th time... that is PURELY A GAMEPLAY MECHANIC. If you want
to know why you can't take clips from the ammo pool of one weapon and
use them in another's, then go play Deus Ex: Invisible War. Or pay
attention: BECAUSE THEN WHEN YOU WOULD RUN OUT OF AMMO FOR ONE WEAPON,
YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO USE ANY OF THEM. You'd be stuck without a
single round.

So? As all the fanboys say. "Aim more." Then you'd be able to use your fav gun all the time and have stacks of "ammo" for it. It's a terrible "gameplay mechanic" that not only breaks the lore of the game, but also feels too contrived for me to accept as anything less than a ridiculous idea that should have never have made it into the game in the first place.

Modifié par Akimb0, 12 février 2010 - 04:03 .