Vintage Heat Sink

Yeah, I mean if the Lancer had the same stats of the Avenger people would have literally sent letter bombs to Bioware all day. The problem was the Avenger itself all along, the gun was way too crap in ME3.

I meant about the campaign. People wanted the Lancer back (probably because it was the very first weapon we have in ME1 and it's human made), but they didn't want it to be crap like the Avenger was in ME3.
I think the campaign is relatively balanced in terms of weapons. The multiplayer however is a mess in the weapon balance department.

different scenario, the ending was the product of two individuals, one who left (more or less willingly) and one who has been subject to a promoveatur ut amoveatur...but also remember that the devs already put their hands forward about that in a previous interview. That said, remember what happened with inventory in ME2? The Mako? Planetary exploration? Just saying.

'Fun' is totally subjective and cannot be balanced around ever. Beyond that even single player games have to be balanced else difficulty modes can become trivial (which coincidentally isn't fun for some people when there's no test to the game at all) thus when it comes to shooters weapons have to be balance, even in single player.

Hm...

I still would like my revolver-drum-system (something I've explained on the old BSN when those clips first showed up!)

It works like this: Your heat sinks are in a revolver-like drum (or even a true "magazine" - but the drum works better, for reasons I'll explain in a moment), once you've overloaded one sink you cycle the drum (one position) and have another sink (insulated from the first) and can continue firing and after that you switch to the next (till either all are overloaded or the first has cooled down...so no extra "thermal-clips" needed (you won't be ejecting used sinks, you will just switch to a fresh one if your weapon ever overheats (which it might in intense fire-fights were you have to hold a position for example) and if you truly manage to overheat all 6 or so (might be more, depending on the gun) sinks you will at least have a lower total cooldown period because the first sink will have either fully cooled down or at at least it will have cooled down enough so you can continue firing if you don't go full burn all the time (you have powers, too to give you some breathing room!))

still, I like this - I'd also like it if this system (lore and logic wise) were the default (at least for the first few weapons you get right at the start...if you are in trouble you don't have time to look for thermal clips and you don't have any ressources to make any either (can't take parts of the ship to make clips, you need the ship, too!)

ps: I always found it funny that you couldn't at least fire a few shots without clips (not many, but a few...an emergency reserve internal sink or something), kind of "the best of both worlds" (you can chose to let the weapon cool down or punch out the sink)

I also have a dev.-question: Will we have cutscene death again if we use the wrong gun (like say the Executioner Pistole (and similar guns) from ME3, if you use it in the first mission (can't stop Doctor Eva-Bot with it because you have to hit her several times and this weapon can't do that!))?

Got one more thing to add: Weapons need to cool down while not in use (even if you switch to another gun, no matter what gun) and I hope we don't have to start the cooldown manually (meaning as soon as you stop firing the weapon will start to cool off, even if exchanged for another one (no button-push required))

yes but they could not neuter the ending without massive amounts of "I told you it sucked" and they still reacted initially with "you dislike it because you do not understand it". Bioware is not equipped to deal with being told they did something wrong by a lot of people.

Huh, How did this thread go from "Yeah! Vintage Heat Sink is back!!" to "Bioware are going to make us regret it"? While people are allowed to be sceptic (and some even rightfully so), can we keep some of the threads some what positive?

In this case it really does depend on how they handle it.  If the system works like it did in ME 3, it could get real annoying, real fast.  Considering I just played a set of MP matches with the Collector SMG, and it got to the cool down stage and it was just overly complicated 'bad'.  It does not make any sense for a gun to not be able to cool off if you put it away.  

On the flip side seems this thread has turned into another pointless debate on the ME 3 ending and since I am on the opposite side of that debate and think that BioWare should not have to appologize and went way above and beyond the call of duty, I expect stating that opinion, will just start another pointless debate. 

But they didn't have to do even that much.  A creator is under no obligation to fix any part of their story let alone the ending of said story and in fact video games is pretty much the only medium where such fixes are even possible in the way it ended up happened.  BioWare was in an impossible situation because people got so mad at them for daring to mess up on an ending to their fictional series but yet they obviously wanted to preserve their artistic vision.  Which I don't blame them in the least because, as someone who wants to be a writer and get published, if someone honestly came up to me and started yelling at me in the street for writing a 'sucky ending' I'd probbaly just shrug my shoulders at it and say 'oops, I'll consider your criticism and I may do better next time.'

When did BioWare throw a tantrum?  I mean mayyybbbe I am not remembering things properly because its been FIVE FRIGGIN YEARS, but really the first comments on the ending I read were essentially.  'We know about fans concerns, we are trying to address them, but don't expect things to change too much because we have an artistic vision'.  That's pretty much it.  No real arrogance, no clucthing their fists in impotent rage and yelling people, but a calm, measured response.  

As to the topic at hand though 'can BioWare take criticism?'  Well in the case of the ending for Mass Effect 3 this is one of the best examples that they can.  They fixed it, but they did not do...as they have done with other pieces of criticism, gone so far in the other direction as to piss off an entirely new group of people.  Take the reaction from DA 2s 'repeated maps' to DA Is huuugge world.  

But they did fix it, at least a lot of the plot holes that were most criticized, they fixed what was broken without having to do an entire 180 and change what they wanted to do in the first place.  And yes, of course you have to imagine what happens next.  That is how storytelling usually works.  A content creator goes through the effort of creating a story with a beginning, a middle, and an end.  If that is not satisfactory then the fans can (and in fact have been welcomed to do so) imagine something else happend.  I, for instance, wrote a 54 chapter fan fic after the ending where I imagined 'what happened next'.  It was quite fun. 

you are not familiar with TT roleplaying games are you? This is not a piece of static fiction, this is an RPG

If the DM/ST does not tell you x happens or agrees with you on that then it DOES NOT HAPPEN. Head canon is one step removed of delusion in these situations.


That said. Up until the VERY RELEASE OF THE GAME not only were senior developers not allowed to use an import character in their tests (this not knowing for sure if the mess that these endings were was the result of a crappy playthrough or not) but Weekes himself was SURE that the destroy ending had a conventional happy ending with Shepard reuniting with the crew and all so much that he had to inquire about WTF happened under request from Holmes and found out somehow unbeknownst to him (a project lead) it was cut by the dynamic duo....and you know very well why that is.