874 réponses à ce sujet

[WillieStyle]

Scavenging for ammo is a feature not a bug. It encourages you to leave cover and move around the battle field. Adding a "slow regen" option would encourage plodding gameplay.
As an example, during the ambush on the Collector ship (on Insanity), I can use my Widow to kill every enemy if I run to the far platform after I kill Harbinger the second time and loot the heavy weapon ammo he drops. Doing this involves dodging the second Scion's shockwave and avoiding fire from the last platform of Collector Drones/Gaurdians.
In this scenario, I trade security (staying behind cover on the first platform) for speed (getting more ammo so I can use my Widow exclusively. This is a good thing.

A final point:
These threads aren't really about convincing one another. They are about providing feedback to the developers. I'd like them to know that I love the ME2 system, dislike the ME1 system and ALSO dislike the idea of a "hybrid" system in ME3.
There are things I'd like changed in ME3: more party banter, ballanced weapon mods, a seperate cooldown for class-specific powers. But please, for the love of the flying spagghetti monster, leave the ammo system as is. It's perfect.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 15 mars 2010 - 02:13 .

[CatatonicMan]

Koralis wrote...

You misunderstand the heat clips. 

1)  There are Heat Clips already installed in all of your guns, with varying capacity left
2)  There are spare Heat Clips on your belt (or whereever.)

When you look at your shot capacity, that's Number of Shots in your Weapon + Number of shots for that weapon if you used all of your spare heat clips on that weapon.   Proof?  Reloading one weapon causes the number of shots for other weapons to decrease.  Until you reload the numbers stay constant for other weapons (though it decreases for the one that you're firing.)

Re: Inconsistant capacity.

Weapons put out different amount of Heat Per Shot.   A single Sniper Rifle shot will fill up a heat clip.  It can take 40+ assault rifle shots to fill up a heat clip. 

No, I'm understanding them perfectly. If the heat clip system worked like it should from the lore (which it doesn't), you would be able to exhaust all your ammo (excepting maybe the clips already loaded into each weapon) with one weapon. There would be no need to switch weapons from running out of ammo, because at that point you wouldn't have any ammo left at all (again, excepting possibly what was already loaded).

Even if the clips were somehow already 'installed' in  each gun, there is no reason why you couldn't remove them from one and add them to another. They were made to be universal, after all.

For the last, I don't know where I was going with that one. I think I was more referring to how the number of reserve clips change depending on the weapon. Kinda goes back to the 'one big ammo pool' issue.

[WillieStyle]

Dudeman315 wrote...

All having a limited ammo supply did for me is slow combat way down. Every fight became save ammo for Hard enemies/Charging enemies while using Incinerate on everything. Seriously they could have just removed weapons all together cause use incinerate, wait, incinerate is all you need. Love ME1, would have rented ME2 if I knew how different it would be from ME1.

This is a learn-2-play issue, not a game design issue.

[TJSolo]

WillieStyle wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

All having a limited ammo supply did for me is slow combat way down. Every fight became save ammo for Hard enemies/Charging enemies while using Incinerate on everything. Seriously they could have just removed weapons all together cause use incinerate, wait, incinerate is all you need. Love ME1, would have rented ME2 if I knew how different it would be from ME1.

This is a learn-2-play issue, not a game design issue.

For w/e difficulty he is playing looks like he has learned to conserve ammo(Sniper?) and use incinerate more.

Clearly he isn't talking soldier playstyle.

[Dudeman315]

Actually when it's flat out better to not use weapons it's a design issue. This was on insanity as an Inflitrator and I'd rather not risk dying when a smarter option is available to me. I played smart just not fast.

PS. Also on a xbox 360.

Modifié par Dudeman315, 15 mars 2010 - 02:24 .

[WillieStyle]

Dudeman315 wrote...

Actually when it's flat out better to not use weapons it's a design issue. This was on insanity as an Inflitrator and I'd rather not risk dying when a smarter option is available to me. I played smart just not fast.

PS. Also on a xbox 360.

You yourself claimed it wasn't better because you didn't enjoy how slow it made the game.
Play smart and aggressively: the game is fast and fun.
Play conservatively and timidly: the game is slow.  If you enjoy slow gameplay, then more power to you. If you don't enjoy slow gameplay, then you can either change your playstyle or complain on the forums.  I'd rather do the former, but to each his own I suppose.

[CatatonicMan]

WillieStyle wrote...

Dudeman315 wrote...

Actually when it's flat out better to not use weapons it's a design issue. This was on insanity as an Inflitrator and I'd rather not risk dying when a smarter option is available to me. I played smart just not fast.

PS. Also on a xbox 360.

You yourself claimed it wasn't better because you didn't enjoy how slow it made the game.
Play smart and aggressively: the game is fast and fun.
Play conservatively and timidly: the game is slow.  If you enjoy slow gameplay, then more power to you. If you don't enjoy slow gameplay, then you can either change your playstyle or complain on the forums.  I'd rather do the former, but to each his own I suppose.

Kinda hard to play fast and loose on Insanity. Most of the time you are hiding behind a crate waiting for your blood to refill. The fact that it isn't really any harder, just more time consuming, is another issue entirely.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 15 mars 2010 - 02:32 .

[WillieStyle]

CatatonicMan wrote...
Kinda hard to play fast and loose on Insanity.

Umm... isn't that the point?

Most of the time you are hiding behind a crate waiting for your blood to refill.

Not if you do it right.

The fact that it isn't really any harder, just more time consuming, is another issue entirely.

I finished my first Insanity playthrough faster than my first Hardcore playthrough.  It isn't more time consuming; just harder.

Modifié par WillieStyle, 15 mars 2010 - 02:35 .

[CatatonicMan]

WillieStyle wrote...

I finished my first Insanity playthrough faster than my first Hardcore playthrough.  It isn't more time consuming; just harder.

Only about 2 places are actually any harder on insanity. Everywhere else just takes longer.

Then again, I was playing as an Adept; that probably had something to do with it.

[baller7345]

WillieStyle wrote...

CatatonicMan wrote...
Kinda hard to play fast and loose on Insanity.

Umm... isn't that the point?

Most of the time you are hiding behind a crate waiting for your blood to refill.

Not if you do it right.

The fact that it isn't really any harder, just more time consuming, is another issue entirely.

I finished my first Insanity playthrough faster than my first Hardcore playthrough.  It isn't more time consuming; just harder.

I think the more you play insanity the more you learn how to play the difficulty and the quicker you go.  When you first start playing the difficulty it may seem more time consuming but by the end you are actually clearing areas faster than you you did on your lower difficulty playthough.  Not sure if this holds true with hardcore but after playing through on vetern then insanity I learned what allowed me to be the most effecient with the class I was using and thus learned that spamming incinerate wasn't the best since it no longer one shotted most enemies.  It taught me to use my other powers and thus teaching me how to clear areas faster.

WillieStyle I just thought I'd add that to the quotes you just said.

Modifié par baller7345, 15 mars 2010 - 02:45 .

[Dudeman315]

Agree with CatatonicMan 2 places. Also I started Insanity at with an Imported character at lvl 3. So no carry over lvls or weapons. I said it was slower not worse. But I don't want to steal the thread just stating my opinion: that the ammo system made the game slower paced and less intense.

[finnithe]

The only thing I fault Bioware for not including is a more complex weapon upgrading system. Call of Duty and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 offer somewhat complex upgrading systems, and the so-called "idiot shooter crowd" still gets it. I think you guys underestimate them. I play shooters and RPG's.

[CatatonicMan]

finnithe wrote...

The only thing I fault Bioware for not including is a more complex weapon upgrading system. Call of Duty and Battlefield: Bad Company 2 offer somewhat complex upgrading systems, and the so-called "idiot shooter crowd" still gets it. I think you guys underestimate them. I play shooters and RPG's.

I think it would be Bioware, not us, that underestimates them.

[Terror_K]

The damage has already been done by the thermal clip system unfortunately, so removing it now wouldn't really help that much. The best they can do now is improve it and perhaps try and plug some of the massive holes and inconsistencies it brought up (though how even that can be done is beyond me... the whole thing was a total lore fubar, particularly with Zaeed referring to it existing before it did and the isolated Ronald Taylor and his group having them, etc.).

[Koralis]

CatatonicMan wrote...

Koralis wrote...

You misunderstand the heat clips. 

1)  There are Heat Clips already installed in all of your guns, with varying capacity left
2)  There are spare Heat Clips on your belt (or whereever.)

When you look at your shot capacity, that's Number of Shots in your Weapon + Number of shots for that weapon if you used all of your spare heat clips on that weapon.   Proof?  Reloading one weapon causes the number of shots for other weapons to decrease.  Until you reload the numbers stay constant for other weapons (though it decreases for the one that you're firing.)

Re: Inconsistant capacity.

Weapons put out different amount of Heat Per Shot.   A single Sniper Rifle shot will fill up a heat clip.  It can take 40+ assault rifle shots to fill up a heat clip. 

No, I'm understanding them perfectly. If the heat clip system worked like it should from the lore (which it doesn't), you would be able to exhaust all your ammo (excepting maybe the clips already loaded into each weapon) with one weapon. There would be no need to switch weapons from running out of ammo, because at that point you wouldn't have any ammo left at all (again, excepting possibly what was already loaded).

umm.. that's exactly how it works.  You switch weapons to guns that already have an ammo clip loaded.

Even if the clips were somehow already 'installed' in  each gun, there is no reason why you couldn't remove them from one and add them to another. They were made to be universal, after all.

You're assuming that they can be moved.  If they're designed to seal up after removal, then you can't reinstall them.  Yes, I agree in theory.  In practice, they don't let you unload a weapon except to add more "clip"

[CatatonicMan]

Koralis wrote...

You're assuming that they can be moved.  If they're designed to seal up after removal, then you can't reinstall them.  Yes, I agree in theory.  In practice, they don't let you unload a weapon except to add more "clip"

Unless every weapons engineer in the future is a complete idiot (which they might be, considering how they never thought that allowing thermal clips to cool down might be a good idea), the maximum number of clips you possibly couldn't remove would be one - and even that would be pushing it.

More to the point, even if you could simply explain away the inability to share ammo between weapons (which makes about as much sense as this comparison), there is no possible reason why every clip you pick up adds ammo to every weapon instead of filling up the one you actually use first.

As a point of fact, I don't think it unreasonable for Shep to not load all his extra thermal clips into irremovable ammo storage units in weapons that he would never really use if he had that ammo available for another weapon. Just saying.

Oh! New, unrelated thought:

If the thermal sinks are actually loaded in 'clip' form (like what they appear to be in when picked up), why didn't the weapon designers of the future make weapons capable of auto-cycling the sinks? 

Wouldn't it make more sense? It would allow a near-constant rate of fire, with only a slight delay between sinks and without a need to waste time going in and out of cover or moving your sights off the target. As a bonus, you could cycle them into some sort of external cooling receptacle for later re-use.

Probably would start less fires that way.

Modifié par CatatonicMan, 15 mars 2010 - 04:42 .

[LoweGear]

Koralis wrote...

When you look at your shot capacity, that's Number of Shots in your Weapon + Number of shots for that weapon if you used all of your spare heat clips on that weapon. Proof? Reloading one weapon causes the number of shots for other weapons to decrease. Until you reload the numbers stay constant for other weapons (though it decreases for the one that you're firing.)

Uhm, just having played through with my Adept minutes ago, no that's not how the system works gameplay-wise.



Say my Avenger has 40 shots on the clip, with 400 reserve, while my Carnifex has 6 shots on the clip with 18 reserve. If I used up my Avenger's current clip and reload, I'll be reloading 40 rounds in the clip and taking from the 400 reserve, bringing it down to 360. However, my Carnifex will still have 6 shots on the clip and 18 reserve.



As implemented in-game, each weapon has its own reservoir of thermal clips that they take from, i.e. they do not take clips from the reservoirs of other weapons. The only weapons that share ammo pools are the Heavy Weapons, where using one heavy weapon will reduce the stockpile for all your other heavy weapons.

[FlyingWalrus]

TheConfidenceMan wrote...

That's laughably exaggerated. The starting accuracy was a perfectly reasonable base to build on, and with only a little investment in the skill you wouldn't even know the difference between the accuracy in ME and ME2. Maybe you feel you shouldn't have to invest in them at all because you're already a soldier, that's fine, they could have added other ways to progress in weapon handling like shortening reload times or unlocking feats like they had in ME1.

Now what they've done is completely removed the skill of the character informing the core gameplay, which is shooting, leaving the it completely in the hand of the player. For an RPG that's incredibly unrewarding.

I hate this freaking argument, mostly because it's dumb and untrue. Like I posed to the guy who made the same argument and hasn't been back to these forums since then, I say to you:

Play through ME2 without upgrading a single character skill. No weapon upgrades, either. Nor squadmate skill upgrades. And since upgrades make no difference in this game anymore, no ship upgrades either. Since all skill is now player-based, even Insanity should be a cakewalk, right? What a dumb not-RPG game ME2 is now, waaah waaah.

As for the differences in the skill systems, it's more the skills that were removed as opposed to how many levels there are for any given skill. I really don't care whether there are 20 little increments or 4 large increments, there simply isn't a wide enough range of skills to feel like you're creating a customized character. Removing the hacking/bypassing skills, removing persuasion skills, healing skills, armor skills, etc... all adds up to fewer choices, fewer ways to customize, and less thought having to be put in what upgrades you choose, which is exaclty what dumbing down is.

Dumbing down is such a stupid phrase. It implies that you could go through things asleep and never have to make a tough decision along the way. Let me tell you, I had a hard time deciding if I wanted more skill at persuading people or more awesome sniping skills on my first, unguided playthrough. That was never an issue in ME1 because, having been a veteran of KotOR and NWN of yore, I poured all available points into Charisma first knowing that I'd have a ton of points later on for the necessities (which I never felt I needed much because ME1 was really rather pathetic in difficulty).

[FlyingWalrus]

And while we're on the issue of thermal clips (let it go already), I actually found it way faster to POP POP POP--reload--POP POP BANG than to POW POW POW--OVERHEAT... cooling... cooling--POW POW POW POW POW--OVERHEAT... cooling... cooling. So on.

[CatatonicMan]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
And while we're on the issue of thermal clips (let it go already)

I'll let it go about the same time I stop complaining about the lack of helmet toggle: when they fix it.

Or when I get tired. Or bored. Whichever comes first.

[LoweGear]

Will have to agree with Flying Walrus' sentiments here. Despite the shift in importance from character skill to player skill, Mass Effect 2 still has to rely on your classes' powers in order to get through a level. For example playing as an Adept in level 1 is incredibly hard work, even on Freedom's Progress, but as you level up and power cooldown times decreases and their damage increases wiping out multiple enemies with Warp + Pull/Singularity becomes much easier to pull off if you've dropped points into them.



Besides, in any real-time action RPG player skill is still essential if you want to avoid having to look at the reloading screen over and over again. People here will not doubt Diablo II as an RPG I'm sure, and even in that game if I just stand or charge using my Barbarian spamming abilities left and right with no plan or tactics I'm going to get surrounded by enemies and slaughtered.



And what's wrong with requiring player skill to get through a game? Which is more badass, a player who gets through a level using his reflexes and tactical judgement, or a getting through a game just because you poured the necessary amount of points into an ability? It also allows me as a player to better immerse myself in my character, because he is badass because of what I, as its creator, does, and not just because of the abilities predefined into the character.

[psyman]

FlyingWalrus wrote...
What you guys seem to want is a return to the monotony that did get chopped out, something that BioWare seems not too keen on going back to themselves.

This is completely untrue and a total distortion of what people have been saying. I like loot and I like inventories, but in Mass Effect both were heavily flawed. To suggest that someone critisizing those aspects in ME2 wants the old system back unchanged is absurd and you know it.

[FlyingWalrus]

No, I actually don't doubt that some people prefer the old inventory system to none. That's their onus, I suppose, but it doesn't mean it A) makes sense, or is a good idea. Like it's been said, sacred cows. Why can't there be an RPG with no inventory system? Why can't there be an RPG without many of what are seen as RPG necessities, in fact? Many of the people kvetching about ME2 being "dumbed down" have very shallow ideas about what an RPG is to begin with.

And I believe it was also said on the blog that rebuilding the inventory would have been too costly and far more than it was worth given that there were other pressing issues on BioWare's plate, like tightening up the gameplay. Maybe in ME3, but I certainly wouldn't miss it if it's not there again.

Even a "good" inventory system brings with it a lot of, like I said, "ritual monotony." I have to sort, figure what's worth keeping and what's not, and repeat this ad nauseum as my space continually runs out. However, as far as necessary evils go, I liked Dragon Age's. I could immediately consign merchant trash to the Junk tab and sell it all wholesale at the next merchant I could meet up with. But that's in a fantasy setting where bartering like that makes far more sense than in a futurebound science fiction universe.

I must say that I've spent a whole lot more time actually playing Mass Effect 2 than I have Dragon Age, so far.

[Vaeliorin]

I still laugh at the suggestion that the ammo system forces you to use multiple weapons. I've only once in 3 playthroughs come close to running out of ammo for a weapon and been forced to use something other than my main weapon choice. So if the intent of the ammo system is to make you use multiple weapons, then it's an utter failure.



That's not to say I dislike the ammo system. I simply don't care about it. It adds nothing to the game, and only rarely takes anything anyway (there's only once where I've had to scour an area for clips.)

[DarknessBear]

It's just kind of sad when MW2 almost has as much customization as Mass Effect 2.