This pistol doesn't have a thermal clip

>Shepard, what's wrong?
>My damn gun won't fire, it must be broken.
>What? No! Shepard, it just needs a thermal clip.
>A what?
>Right, you've been out two years. Lemme explain... *Jacob just holds up one* Put this shit in your gun, or we're fucked.
How hard would that have been?

They attempted hybrid-system with both clips and regular cooldown but play testers couldn't understand it.

>Like use Reaper tech to reanimate Shepard and from then on Shepard has a mental connection to the Reapers and maybe even biotic powers
>plz gib protag unique special power

>that's...a step backwards

>jacob holds up a piece of paper and rips a hole with a pencil
THE PRIZE

They did it for the casual audience who would say no ammo? lol infinite ammo from metal inside the gun that's stupid lmao

user, let's examine this idea.
Imagine you are an Alliance Marine in combat against the Geth circa 2183. Frequently, in the heat of battle, you overheat your assault rifle. You are then left helpless for several seconds while the heat-sink slowly cools. What can you do? Nothing if you have no back-up weapon or your backup weapon is not suitable for the situation.

Now instead, imagine that when your heat-sink hits its limit you can press a button to eject it and slide in a new one. Now you only had to pause your firing for one or two seconds and can keep going.

So, Thermal Clips do make sense and probably should have been present in ME1. There is another issue though:

What do you do with the ejected heat sink? It will possibly be scalding hot to the touch. So do you try to pick it up? Put it in a special pouch or compartment maybe that can rapidly cool it so that you can keep swapping heat sinks? That might work. However keep in mind the HEAT must GO SOMEWHERE. Does it go into that little pouch or compartment? Well that special pouch will only be able to absorb so much heat. Does the clip just radiate the heat away into the air? That will probably take some time. After all, the purpose of a heat sink is to ABSORB heat, not to radiate it into its surroundings.

Now it seems like your ability to keep swapping thermal clips in a repeating cycle is pretty limited. It almost seems like the most sensible solution is to carry several thermal clips and just discard them as they heat up.

Maybe in every platoon there is a "heat sink janitor" who sweeps the battlefield after a fight for heat sinks. It's considered a derogatory position, but someone has to do it. Often the "new guy". On Omega, there is a whole industry of organized or lone Clip Sweeper who scour the area for spent thermal clips, prep them, and sell them later. Now look at that, we've gotten some extra world building out of this.

Attached: 1339633949663.png (751x745, 611.96K)

This KROGAN COCK is SO GOOD.

Sarah calm down

>>plz gib protag unique special power
Sure, if you're gonna kill him and ressurect him then do something with it. Have it MEAN something. If you aren't going to use it to change his nature, then at least make the time-skip bigger and more significant. Like 20 years as opposed to 2 years.

Sure, just remember you have to translate it into gameplay. It would be nice if guns would regen the ammo inside the magazine if you fired the weapon slow enough.

>2020
>Still complaining about thermal clips

sheppard is a clone though
you even fight the other clones in the citadel DLC for me3

Yup. What are you gonna do about it?

Clone. Singular. Also if that's the case, what's with the cybernetics?

they cloned him and then used parts of the clone to fix the original body by doing a cyber frankestein on it

he isnt a clone, its the original corpse revived

What compels someone to make the same exact thread as before? Exact same image and OP, inspiring the exact same responses and arguments. It's so fucking boring

Now hold on a minute...

Attached: 1320767691921.jpg (460x640, 66.18K)

>Remember the days when you could just slap Omni-Gel on everything

What compels you to go to threads just for the sake of bitching about them?

>Sure, if you're gonna kill him and ressurect him then do something with it.
Doing nothing >>>> giving Sheopard some retarded super-ability
>Have it MEAN something.
Agree, following good thriller laws aftermath of being reconstructed was supposed to be delayed, but instead we got "lol u are as well half synthetic" from star retard

That security update made a lot of people unhappy

You even get a cooldown based lancer in me3 and its op too what gives

When I scroll through threads, I hope to find fresh new thoughts and discussions, but then I see a rerun of yesterday or the day before, and it offends me. I think to myself, Yas Forums can do so much better than this. That is what compels a man to speak his mind. Refusal to drop my standards. If more people gave a shit about reposts, this board would be a lot less cluttered with shit nobody wants to see, again.

as opposed to protag controlling machine gods

>ME2
>controlling machine gods

>The original plan was to have GETH reanimate him
you better have a source because that's sick as fuck

>Doing nothing >>>> giving Sheopard some retarded super-ability
Well I disagree. If you are going to do nothing with the death and resurrection then don't do the death/resurrection in the first place.

>Agree, following good thriller laws aftermath of being reconstructed was supposed to be delayed, but instead we got "lol u are as well half synthetic" from star retard
Ultimately we agree. Precisely how you use the resurrection and what you do with it is up for debate.

Shepard already has special protag powers. I don't see anyone else vanguard charging in combat.

Tela Vasir.

The clone from the Citadel DLC was a backup plan if the Lazarus Project didn't work. The Shepard you play as is the original body

>If you are going to do nothing with the death and resurrection then don't do the death/resurrection in the first place.
Well completely disagree about this. Death by itself is a good boost of player/viewer/reader interests (yeah a bit cheap, but...), it makes antagonist more believable since it can strike back. I just don't like this cliche with super-power, Inquisitor looked objectively weaker as protag than Hero of Ferelden, Ryders who became irreplaceable as the next pathfinder due to special and unique implant with AI was... well picrelated

Attached: 1584264294082.jpg (772x542, 133.49K)

Would be nice to see more enemies use powers the same way the player does.

>make somewhat interesting tech by having guns that fire tiny shards of metal at a high velocity e.g. basically infinite ammo
>sequel - nah reload like every other game

>Death by itself is a good boost of player/viewer/reader interests (yeah a bit cheap, but...)
Don't do anything cheap.

In ME1 Shepard is the only person other than Saren with the beacon vision. Until he shares it with Liara, anyway. The Protagonist in a story should ideally have some reason that makes them essential to be the protagonist beyond the writer just picking that character out of a hat. ME1 has this but ME2 and ME3 do not.

So again, I don't care what you do specifically with Shepard in ME2, but try to do something. If you kill the character off then don't do it for a cheap thrill. That's also a cliche (one you are apparently fine with for some reason).

Just write the sequel intelligently, okay?

>ME1 has this but ME2 and ME3 do not.
Shepard is ME2 and ME3 protagonist because he gets shit done no matter the odds.

>Just write the sequel intelligently, okay?
>In ME1 Shepard is the only person other than Saren with the beacon vision. Until he shares it with Liara, anyway. The Protagonist in a story should ideally have some reason that makes them essential to be the protagonist beyond the writer just picking that character out of a hat.
Imao
Enjoy your comic-book storytelling

Reminder.
I'm still fucking mad.

Attached: 1583684797319.png (880x699, 515.05K)

What's worse is reload cancelling pretty much invalidates reloading as a gameplay mechanic.

Yes, I understand your point here, but it's a shallow objection. Remember: this is a game. The gameplay needs to take priority. I do not think the thermal heat system in ME1 worked too well mechanically. Most players spec'd their guns to neutralize it as soon as possible since a gun that fires infinitely is better than one which must be fired in bursts. So, that tells us that the mechanic was not functioning very well in the game. In that case, why even have it? Such a unique mechanic ought to be persistent in the game or it isn't worth implementing.

So, especially when considering this post: I get why this change was made and I think it was to the ultimate benefit of the franchise. If there some good argument against it I have yet to hear it. It's always the same thing:

"Why would you regress technology?"
"The heat management system was cool and unique."

However nobody is ever willing to address that it didn't work well as a mechanic or concede that game balance, in terms of how the guns work, was better in ME1. Instead people just zero in on "guns with infinite ammo", but without any context.

At the end of the day, I think it's just a knee jerk reaction that few people bother to actually think about. They loved ME1 and ME2 changed something so that thing must therefore be bad. No further analysis necessary.

Attached: he_s_always_watching_you_by_sarakpn_d7j8j0m-fullview.jpg (800x547, 51.28K)

>Shepard is ME2 and ME3 protagonist because he gets shit done no matter the odds.
Great story telling.

>Enjoy your comic-book storytelling
Well, that's what Mass Effect 2 did. Ever notice how Mac Walters kept writing comic books on the side? That's his favorite medium. I don't for it myself.

This discussion has turned sour, so let's end it here. There's not really anything to argue about anyway. We both agree things could have been done better.

>It would be nice if guns would regen the ammo inside the magazine if you fired the weapon slow enough.
each "metal block" inside a gun is supposed to give it thousands of shots ammo counter should have looked like (30/5000), with heat being the only real issue. thermal clips made no sense.

There's your...I mean Shepard's clone

Attached: Every thread.png (1272x2162, 2.68M)

>Great story telling.
Well yeah, better than "you have special ability so no matter how bad youa re story will carry you through anything with this wonder plot device"
>Well, that's what Mass Effect 2 did
Except it did opposite, since Shepard had to rely on his peronality's traits, not on plot device
>We both agree things could have been done better.
In third game, second was done good.

If the weapon is too hot to fire, then those thousands of rounds of ammunition might as well not even be there. I understand you have a room temperature IQ so this concept is way above your ability to grasp, but try it anyway. Imagine you have thousands of rounds of ammunition but your gun barrel gets so hot it melts. Now you can't fire gun. Get it? This is how the heat sinks work. The gun never runs out of ammo, but without a heat-sink it will get too hot and the gun will probably literally melt. I explained in detail, in very easy to understand language, right here: How the concept works and how it makes sense.

You seem to think I'm saying that the ammo block itself has gone somewhere. It hasn't. But, I repeat, if your gun is too hot to fire then you can't fire it. Get it? You can't fire the gun if you can't fire the gun and you can't fire the gun because it is too hot. You need a heat-sink to absorb the heat, but it can only absorb too much. Then it needs to cool. That takes time. Time could cost you your life. So a solution is to carry multiple heat sinks or "thermal clips" and replace the heat sink when the gun gets to hot. That is, you take out the warm heat-sink and put in a new one, and now your gun is instantly cool again and you can keep firing it.

Does that make sense now, hun?

I disagree.

>The gun never runs out of ammo, but without a heat-sink it will get too hot and the gun will probably literally melt
Like the guns in the first game? Or the old-style rifle in 3?

Well, enjoy Andromeda and DAI
I will enjoy Witcher series

Okay.

The issue is that it doesn't have much weight penalty for a weapon of its size. Thus it is a great caster weapon, since it helps to perserve low cooldown, and the lack of need to reload or ammo management means they could afford to hold position and alternate between casting and shooting, using the auto cooldown aspect to help you maintain a steady offense.

>The gun never runs out of ammo, but without a heat-sink it will get too hot and the gun will probably literally melt.
Other user here, IMO
From military perspective it's retarded, very retarded, unless you have someone to lobby such project

Any military would still use the quick heat sink reload along with the self cooldown feature.

never, the highlights of retarded bullshit these past decades are too hilarious to stop mocking

The specific gun doesn't matter. The point is, the guns are designed to prevent you from firing if they get too hot because if you did you'd damage or destroy the weapon (and possibly yourself). It's a safety feature.

A nice bit of lore building would be a technique used in desperate situations where-in people disable the safety so that they can get a few more shots off. That could be life and death, but it would mean a very high chance of damage or destroying the weapon. Which risks injury or death to the person wielding it as well because a gun melting into super-heated slag in your hand is a bad idea. Especially because for all we know it could explode in the process, which would be even worse. Not to mention it is probably then heating up the air around it and if you have no mask/helmet you're probably gonna burn your lungs and face.

Barrels in modern day times do get hot and melt.

youtube.com/watch?v=jHWhYnwNnfo

You can see the suppressor in that literally coming off and the barrel turning red hot.

Sure. Though as explained here: You will need to explain how the heat sink is being cooled once it is taken out of the gun. This is a little bit of a physics/thermo-dynamics problem but I don't think it should be too hard to grasp for anyone who has graduated high school.

>From military perspective it's retarded, very retarded, unless you have someone to lobby such project
What is retarded and why? That the guns get too hot without a heat sink or the tactic of swapping heat sinks and out for a more continuous rate of fire?

>What is retarded and why?
A gun that can melt just because soldier shot 1 round more is very impractical, standart weapon should work at nearly any condition since you arming bulk of your infantry with it (aka cannon fodder, who not trained to perfectly calculating shots among the chaos of warzone). Cooling down system would be preferable ONLY and ONLY if it was faster than manual reload, if not than you are just giving enemy a free time for manuevering