Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

SF: discuss futuristic sci-fi series, ideas, and crossovers.

Moderator: NecronLord

User avatar
The Reaper
Redshirt
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-04-14 10:35pm

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby The Reaper » 2012-02-16 10:24pm

Actually, the thermal clip is there to put more rounds down range faster, instead of waiting to cool down. This was adopted after seeing the Geth use them and how they would put way more rounds on target. Theoretically they should be able to be used as before (infinite ammo basically) but if you "reload" after it overheats then you can shoot more rounds faster. Obviously this isn't the case in-game or no one would reload.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite signature on the Internet.

There is only WAAAAGGHHH!

User avatar
Havok
Miscreant
Posts: 13014
Joined: 2005-07-02 10:41pm
Location: Oakland CA
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Havok » 2012-02-17 01:37am

Yeay for the codex. :roll:

Look dude, uh oh I have no more thermal clips = GUN USELESS FOREVER.

This is made PATENTLY obvious by the mission in ME2 where you go to the planet where the ship crashed 20 YEARS BEFORE thermal clips were "invented because of the geth", and UH OH!!! How will my gun work?! Oh time traveling thermal clips. Thank gawd. :lol:

It is a stupid fucking system instituted for stupid people that couldn't handle change.
Image

It's 106 miles to Chicago, we got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark... and we're wearing sunglasses.
Hit it.
Blank Yellow (NSFW)
"Mostly Harmless Nutcase"

Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2407
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Grumman » 2012-02-17 08:40pm

The Reaper wrote:Actually, the thermal clip is there to put more rounds down range faster, instead of waiting to cool down. This was adopted after seeing the Geth use them and how they would put way more rounds on target. Theoretically they should be able to be used as before (infinite ammo basically) but if you "reload" after it overheats then you can shoot more rounds faster. Obviously this isn't the case in-game or no one would reload.

You presuppose that not reloading is a bad thing that must be prevented with artificial game mechanics. The better approach would be to encourage the player to reload for the same reason the technology was supposedly invented in-universe: because it provides temporary bursts of a higher sustained rate of fire.

Even if you automatically eject clips, an easy compromise would be for the last clip to automatically be replaced after X seconds, to represent Shepard keeping that last clip loaded just in case it cools down before you find a replacement. Or you could have some old-style, reliable weapons and some new-style, high rate of fire weapons, and let the player choose which to take on any given mission.

This would also fix the pre-clip planet Havok mentioned. Even if removing the clip drops means you run out of ammo, this only reduces your rate of fire instead of completely disarming you. It would also help to demonstrate to the player why the heat clip system is better, sort of like bringing an assault rifle to a bolt-action fight until you run out of spare clips.

User avatar
The Reaper
Redshirt
Posts: 37
Joined: 2011-04-14 10:35pm

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby The Reaper » 2012-02-18 07:07pm

Grumman wrote:
The Reaper wrote:Actually, the thermal clip is there to put more rounds down range faster, instead of waiting to cool down. This was adopted after seeing the Geth use them and how they would put way more rounds on target. Theoretically they should be able to be used as before (infinite ammo basically) but if you "reload" after it overheats then you can shoot more rounds faster. Obviously this isn't the case in-game or no one would reload.

You presuppose that not reloading is a bad thing that must be prevented with artificial game mechanics. The better approach would be to encourage the player to reload for the same reason the technology was supposedly invented in-universe: because it provides temporary bursts of a higher sustained rate of fire.

Even if you automatically eject clips, an easy compromise would be for the last clip to automatically be replaced after X seconds, to represent Shepard keeping that last clip loaded just in case it cools down before you find a replacement. Or you could have some old-style, reliable weapons and some new-style, high rate of fire weapons, and let the player choose which to take on any given mission.

This would also fix the pre-clip planet Havok mentioned. Even if removing the clip drops means you run out of ammo, this only reduces your rate of fire instead of completely disarming you. It would also help to demonstrate to the player why the heat clip system is better, sort of like bringing an assault rifle to a bolt-action fight until you run out of spare clips.

While yes this could be a good idea for gameplay, I'm not sure how they will explain the regenerating thermal clips...maybe they just need to cool down? Or maybe after a fight you just go and retrieve them off the ground where they have cooled down. However this wouldn't be very fun...

Don't really know how to reconcile it. However reloading after it overheats and then keep firing, but when you run out of clips you just have to wait for it to cool seems like it would make sense and be fun.
I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite signature on the Internet.

There is only WAAAAGGHHH!

User avatar
SylasGaunt
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 5267
Joined: 2002-09-04 09:39pm
Location: GGG

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby SylasGaunt » 2012-02-21 06:48pm

Some of the early videos made it sound like they were going to roll with the hybrid 'let it cool down or pop the clip to keep firing'. It was much nicer way to do things and I was happy that before long a mod came out that let things work that way (not perfectly since one shot weapons still had to reload, but it helped).

I don't know what made bioware think that going full on 'you must reload' was a better idea than that.

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Stark » 2012-02-21 06:56pm

Arguably, it makes it easier to pirate industry-standard shooter concepts. The older system might have created problems as they moved more and more away from KOTOR and towards Gears of War; ine ME1 the system as it stood was totally broken and it was easy to make a gun that literally never overheated (or a gun that killed guys in one hit). They avoid a lot of balance issues and mechanics by just using 'bullets' and calling them 'stupid thermal clips for fatties as seen in codex entry John 7.ii'.

User avatar
Losonti Tokash
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2915
Joined: 2004-09-29 03:02pm
Location: Lincoln, NE
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Losonti Tokash » 2012-02-21 07:24pm

The system in ME1 always bothered me when you're fighting in a vacuum and have no antmosphere to radiate the heat away to. :V

Would have actually been a great way to introduce thermal clips or at least differentiate zero-g vacuum combat as opposed to "dudes float a bit when they die."
"Sell drugs, run guns, nail sluts, and fuck the law." -Thomas Jefferson
Image

User avatar
Stark
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 36169
Joined: 2002-07-03 09:56pm
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Stark » 2012-02-21 07:27pm

In some situations it'd be nice to be able to use infrastructure to cool your weapons (even if you replace 'ammo box' with 'machine that cools all your clips') like plugging in your rifle to a base and having unlimited cooling but limited mobility/attachments/whatever. There's a lot you can do with the idea of 'cooling' guns, but I'm not sure Bioware has any interest.

User avatar
Luke Skywalker
Padawan Learner
Posts: 376
Joined: 2011-06-27 01:08am

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Luke Skywalker » 2012-03-10 11:24am

Additionally, based on the opening of ME3...is the 36 kiloton mass cannon still canon? Seems to be more like 36 tons.

User avatar
Lancer
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3957
Joined: 2003-12-17 06:06pm
Location: Maryland
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Lancer » 2012-03-10 01:07pm

Luke Skywalker wrote:Additionally, based on the opening of ME3...is the 36 kiloton mass cannon still canon? Seems to be more like 36 tons.


It's 36 kilotons of kinetic energy only if you're shooting from the spinal mount cannon of a Dreadnought (which it did not appear to be using), and Reapers have their own mass effect fields that dramatically reduce the effectiveness of KE weaponry anyways.

User avatar
lordofchange13
Jedi Knight
Posts: 838
Joined: 2010-08-01 07:54pm
Location: Kandrakar, the center of the universe and the heart of infinity

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby lordofchange13 » 2012-03-11 06:58pm

Stark, Bioware tends to put a lot of thought into the in universe macanics of their games, if they make more ME games they would very likely incorporate a similar idea.

As this is a thread about mass effect weaponry: does any one have any idea what a "phasic envelope" is? it is the description given for Geth Pulse Rifles in both ME 2 and 3.
"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world - there is only inevitability"
"I consider the Laws of Thermodynamics a loose guideline at best!"
"Set Flamethrowers to... light electrocution"
It's not enough to bash in heads, you also have to bash in minds.
Tired is the Roman wielding the Aquila.

Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2407
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Grumman » 2012-03-12 12:49pm

lordofchange13 wrote:As this is a thread about mass effect weaponry: does any one have any idea what a "phasic envelope" is? it is the description given for Geth Pulse Rifles in both ME 2 and 3.

I assume it's talking about these from the first game - a plasma gun, basically.

User avatar
lordofchange13
Jedi Knight
Posts: 838
Joined: 2010-08-01 07:54pm
Location: Kandrakar, the center of the universe and the heart of infinity

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby lordofchange13 » 2012-03-12 01:58pm

Grumman wrote:
lordofchange13 wrote:As this is a thread about mass effect weaponry: does any one have any idea what a "phasic envelope" is? it is the description given for Geth Pulse Rifles in both ME 2 and 3.

I assume it's talking about these from the first game - a plasma gun, basically.

They seem similar, but what indication do you have that phasic is the same as plasma?
"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world - there is only inevitability"
"I consider the Laws of Thermodynamics a loose guideline at best!"
"Set Flamethrowers to... light electrocution"
It's not enough to bash in heads, you also have to bash in minds.
Tired is the Roman wielding the Aquila.

Grumman
Jedi Council Member
Posts: 2407
Joined: 2011-12-10 09:13am

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Grumman » 2012-03-16 12:16am

lordofchange13 wrote:They seem similar, but what indication do you have that phasic is the same as plasma?

Because it's the same weapon by a different name. A particle beam weapon, a plasma weapon and a phasic weapon all fire bolts or streams of charged particles. The only obvious difference is that the phasic weapon presumably still uses mass effect fields and not magnetic fields to propel the particles at the target.

User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9927
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Vendetta » 2012-03-17 02:10pm

lordofchange13 wrote:Stark, Bioware tends to put a lot of thought into the in universe macanics of their games, if they make more ME games they would very likely incorporate a similar idea.


If only they didn't keep the guy who did that locked in the basement where he won't trouble anyone involved in the development of the game mechanics...

User avatar
lordofchange13
Jedi Knight
Posts: 838
Joined: 2010-08-01 07:54pm
Location: Kandrakar, the center of the universe and the heart of infinity

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby lordofchange13 » 2012-03-17 04:23pm

Grumman wrote:
lordofchange13 wrote:They seem similar, but what indication do you have that phasic is the same as plasma?

Because it's the same weapon by a different name. A particle beam weapon, a plasma weapon and a phasic weapon all fire bolts or streams of charged particles. The only obvious difference is that the phasic weapon presumably still uses mass effect fields and not magnetic fields to propel the particles at the target.

Plasma is not the same thing as a a stream/bolt of particles. Plasma guns fire plasma which is a state of matter where a gas is ionized, while particles beams do not have to fire charged particles but can also shoot electrons and neutrons and all sorts of other fundamental particles. Though i will agree the Geth assault rifle is some sort particle weapon, and that it is a bridge between the mass effect slug-guns and the Prothean particle-guns.

@Vendetta:
yes that is sad when that happens. Follow your namesake and demand a highly poetic revolution to resolve the problem.
"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world - there is only inevitability"
"I consider the Laws of Thermodynamics a loose guideline at best!"
"Set Flamethrowers to... light electrocution"
It's not enough to bash in heads, you also have to bash in minds.
Tired is the Roman wielding the Aquila.

User avatar
Luke Skywalker
Padawan Learner
Posts: 376
Joined: 2011-06-27 01:08am

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Luke Skywalker » 2012-03-19 04:06pm

Lancer wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:Additionally, based on the opening of ME3...is the 36 kiloton mass cannon still canon? Seems to be more like 36 tons.


It's 36 kilotons of kinetic energy only if you're shooting from the spinal mount cannon of a Dreadnought (which it did not appear to be using), and Reapers have their own mass effect fields that dramatically reduce the effectiveness of KE weaponry anyways.


Yet the Reapers' energy beams, which were far, far weaker than even a tactical nuke or a large conventional bomb, easily destroyed said dreadnoughts with a single hit.

User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9927
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Vendetta » 2012-03-19 05:42pm

Luke Skywalker wrote:Yet the Reapers' energy beams, which were far, far weaker than even a tactical nuke or a large conventional bomb, easily destroyed said dreadnoughts with a single hit.


The reapers' "energy beams" are actually just funky mass drivers that fire a stream of liquid rather than a solid slug. Quite how this is supposed to make them better is not discussed, but apparently they are far more effective than conventional mass drivers.

User avatar
lordofchange13
Jedi Knight
Posts: 838
Joined: 2010-08-01 07:54pm
Location: Kandrakar, the center of the universe and the heart of infinity

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby lordofchange13 » 2012-03-19 05:55pm

Luke Skywalker wrote:
Lancer wrote:
Luke Skywalker wrote:Additionally, based on the opening of ME3...is the 36 kiloton mass cannon still canon? Seems to be more like 36 tons.


It's 36 kilotons of kinetic energy only if you're shooting from the spinal mount cannon of a Dreadnought (which it did not appear to be using), and Reapers have their own mass effect fields that dramatically reduce the effectiveness of KE weaponry anyways.


Yet the Reapers' energy beams, which were far, far weaker than even a tactical nuke or a large conventional bomb, easily destroyed said dreadnoughts with a single hit.

How do you know it's weaker then a tactical nuke? The beam does more damage then the Dreadnought gun and is not made of exotic matter, so thus imparts someamount more then 36 Kilotons. 36 kilotons is much more energy then the average tactical nuke can produce.

@Vendetta
Supposedly the Liquid beam is better because it can be accelerated to much higher speed and the heat somehow adds to it's destructiveness.
"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world - there is only inevitability"
"I consider the Laws of Thermodynamics a loose guideline at best!"
"Set Flamethrowers to... light electrocution"
It's not enough to bash in heads, you also have to bash in minds.
Tired is the Roman wielding the Aquila.

User avatar
Luke Skywalker
Padawan Learner
Posts: 376
Joined: 2011-06-27 01:08am

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Luke Skywalker » 2012-03-19 06:12pm

How do you know it's weaker then a tactical nuke?


...did you watch the opening of ME3? Please do so. Surely you will not come back saying that the pew pew explosions seen are 36 tons, let alone kilotons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oeXA4vZVxE

<snip> but apparently they are far more effective than conventional mass drivers.


...which sort of proves my point, doesn't it? But yes, I am wrong in calling them "energy beams". Still, whatever they are, they don't fit well with the 36 kiloton statement from the codex.

User avatar
Losonti Tokash
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2915
Joined: 2004-09-29 03:02pm
Location: Lincoln, NE
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Losonti Tokash » 2012-03-19 06:18pm

I thought the major advantage from the Reapers' lasers was that kinetic barriers are completely useless against them.
"Sell drugs, run guns, nail sluts, and fuck the law." -Thomas Jefferson
Image

User avatar
Vendetta
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 9927
Joined: 2002-07-07 04:57pm
Location: Sheffield, UK
Contact:

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Vendetta » 2012-03-19 08:38pm

Losonti Tokash wrote:I thought the major advantage from the Reapers' lasers was that kinetic barriers are completely useless against them.


No, they're just far shootier than anyone's kinetic barriers can cope with because they're a constant stream of matter hitting the barrier rather than a single heavy impact. (Hilariously, that actually does match gameplay, SMGs and fast firing assault rifles are better at taking barriers down than high power single shots like heavy pistols and sniper rifles).

User avatar
Bright
Padawan Learner
Posts: 378
Joined: 2010-06-15 04:33am
Location: Estonia.

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby Bright » 2012-03-19 11:10pm

Luke Skywalker wrote:
How do you know it's weaker then a tactical nuke?


...did you watch the opening of ME3? Please do so. Surely you will not come back saying that the pew pew explosions seen are 36 tons, let alone kilotons.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oeXA4vZVxE


Simple fanwank explanation: the Reapers can modulate the strength of their beams and are holding back so they have living humans to collect for harvesting.

User avatar
lordofchange13
Jedi Knight
Posts: 838
Joined: 2010-08-01 07:54pm
Location: Kandrakar, the center of the universe and the heart of infinity

Re: Mass effect and the changes in weaponry

Postby lordofchange13 » 2012-03-20 07:16am

Luke Skywalker wrote:
How do you know it's weaker then a tactical nuke?


...did you watch the opening of ME3? Please do so. Surely you will not come back saying that the pew pew explosions seen are 36 tons, let alone kilotons.

Like Bright said it is very likely that the Reapers care more about completing their mission then actually just nuking people. But even if that is true the canon of Mass effect is that the codex always takes precedence over what it shown in game play and cut scenes.
"There is no such thing as coincidence in this world - there is only inevitability"
"I consider the Laws of Thermodynamics a loose guideline at best!"
"Set Flamethrowers to... light electrocution"
It's not enough to bash in heads, you also have to bash in minds.
Tired is the Roman wielding the Aquila.


Return to “Science Fiction”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest