Also its very easy to run and gun with the Mattock. If you are a soldier, then AR can be heavily spammed. Since Mattock is so much superior to Revenant while using AR, it shifts the balance more in Mattock's favour. Here's a video to show that I mean.
Revenant vs Mattock
Débuté par
Homebound
, sept. 11 2010 04:53
Retour en haut
#52
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 06:53
Ympulse
-
- Members
- 128 messages
swn, here is what you're describing as making the Mattock better than the Revvy;
16 rounds in 2 seconds
all on target
all headshots
no misses
You're a liar until you post video evidence.
I personally need quarter-second breaks in between shots outside of AR in order to maintain 1:1 accuracy with headshots. And that is from the cone of fire itself, not the target moving or recoil.
16 rounds in 2 seconds
all on target
all headshots
no misses
You're a liar until you post video evidence.
I personally need quarter-second breaks in between shots outside of AR in order to maintain 1:1 accuracy with headshots. And that is from the cone of fire itself, not the target moving or recoil.
#53
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 07:11
swn32
-
- Members
- 379 messages
Check out that video I just linked in my previous post. Here's the link again.
That video doesn't have 16 bullets in 2 seconds, it doesn't have all headshots, it doesn't have 0 misses. The Mattock still performs way better than the revenant.
Fact is, you dont always shoot 16 bullets a second. But you can if the situation arises. You can quickly take out a single target with lots of health/defenses.
For the revenant to even compare with mattock, you need even more ridiculous assumptions like full-auto fire without misses and all headshots. You are even less likely to pull that off.
For some reason, posters on this thread seem to think that a Mattock has to do
That video doesn't have 16 bullets in 2 seconds, it doesn't have all headshots, it doesn't have 0 misses. The Mattock still performs way better than the revenant.
Fact is, you dont always shoot 16 bullets a second. But you can if the situation arises. You can quickly take out a single target with lots of health/defenses.
For the revenant to even compare with mattock, you need even more ridiculous assumptions like full-auto fire without misses and all headshots. You are even less likely to pull that off.
For some reason, posters on this thread seem to think that a Mattock has to do
to outperform the Revenant. The fact is, under those constraints it doesnt merely outperform Revenant, it crushes the revenant. Under normal circumstances it outperforms the revenant.16 rounds in 2 seconds all on target all headshots no misses
Modifié par swn32, 01 octobre 2010 - 07:44 .
#54
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 07:55
JaegerBane
-
- Members
- 5 441 messages
swn32 wrote...
That assumption is based on how I play. I dont usually miss shots at mid range or less. Miss a few at long range but thats about it. Regarding ammo, I'm usually able to refill the Mattock to 80 bullets after every battle. There are lots of ammo pickups. You don't have to go out of you way to look for them.
You can't really make that assumption if you're strictly comparing weapon vs weapon. What you'r actually doing there is comparing your performance using the Mattock to your performance using the Revenant. That is an interesting point, but not what the OP asked.
That being said, multiple enemies also works with Mattock. If your assault rifle is sufficiently upgraded, you can easily take out 3 mooks over the course of 1 heightened Adrenaline rush (just aim for the head). After that its possible to spend the remaining ammo on a 4th enemy. All this done in around 1.5 seconds of game time. If there are more enemies around you have to reload and continue.
*sigh*
And what happens if you don't hit the head? What happens if you miss? What happens if the opponent doesn't have a head? What happens if the opponent has more health than the Mattock can bite through in a single clip? You're constantly missing the point here - your argument is along the lines of 'Mattock does everything the Rev can do, so long as you do x, y and z' apparently without realising that doing 'x, y and z' isn't part ot the playstyle the Rev favours. If you're charging around mowing one enemy down after the other, ignoring ammo concerns and different sorts of enemys and only taking their finger off the trigger at the end, do you honestly think it's realistic to assume that the player is going for headshots?
Or, to use the previous analogy, do you think it's sensible to pit a bicycle against a car for a test of speed but make sure the car has no fuel? You're intentionally favouring the Mattock in the situations you keep describing, but you seem to be unaware that the result favouring the Mattock over the Revenant is a result of the contrived nature of your tests, not the actual weapons. I mean, using your logic you could argue the Scimitar is a superior weapon and gets lots of results to back it up - you just have to add the stipulation that you only fight at point blank range and against shielded opponents. Just like how you've done by snatching the stipulation out of thin air that you need to go for headshots.
I'm not saying that Mattock can keep firing for the same amount of time as the Rev. What I'm saying is it can shell out damage much faster and end the battles much more quickly.
*Provided the battles are under a certain size and certain steps are taken*. I don't know whether you're intentionally dodging the issue or whether you've become so obsessed with the Mattock that you physically can't process the idea of a situation where the Revenant's greater sustained damage output is useful, but ultimately, your argument is beginning to sound like you're claiming you'll never need the Revenant's superior sustained damage output.
Thats the way a Mattock is meant to be used. You have to be good at aiming and fast at tapping to use that weapon. These arent really ridiculous constraints. If you cannot do that, then Mattock isnt for you. But those who can use the Mattock that way, can easily outdamage Revenant used by another skilled person.
Yeah, we know. You've repeated it enough times. The problem, as I've pointed out already, is that these stipulations you bring up only make sense when using a gun like the Mattock. You haven't provided an alternative set of stipulations to cover the Revenant. Hence, the test is by definition, not equal.
The cycle vs car comparison made no sense. I am not putting the revenant in an unoptimal situation while comparing. My constraint was that the person who uses the Mattock knows how to use it effectively. If someone cant use a weapon effectively, it doesnt mean the weapon is bad. That someone is doing it wrong.
You're doing precisely that. You're comparing a battle rifle to a machine gun under situations that favour a battlr rifle.
For example, you insist on a stipulation of going purely for headshots, a stipulation that makes no sense whatsoever to a weapon like the Revenant where you'd primarily be aiming for the chest and simply firing on full auto, as it doesn't have the accuracy to make aimed headshots worthwhile.
You stipulate that added care taken into making shots, another blatantly pro-battle rifle stipulation that makes no sense in applying the Rev.
You stipulate 'as long as you tap quickly', which is completely sub-optimal on a full auto weapon.
Every step of the way you've been throwing in little caveats purely to gloss over the Mattock's shortcomings - they're not there to ensure a fair test. You never, for instance, stipulate that the player never intentionally seeks out further ammo, that the player always holds the trigger down at point blank range, that the player always focuses on his opponent - all completely sensible things to do on the Revenant and all would reduce the amount of time required to make on kill after the other, and all would markedly reduce the effectiveness of the Mattock.
In short, your test criteria is absurd. You've constructed a situation, step-by-step, that never ever fails to favour the Mattock, and *always* fails to favour the Revenant, and you expect the result of your test to have some meaning. It's ridiculous. Drawing the car/bicycle analogy was being generous. A better one would have probably been to place Stephen Hawking and Mike Tyson in a room with a math problem and used the time they took to solve it to determine who was physically stronger. All you've actually demonstrated that if you choose to use the Revenant as a battle rifle, it isn't going to work as well as... a battle rifle. I mean, no s**t, Sherlock.
Battles end before ammo count reaches zero. Restock after the battle. With the mattock there really isnt such a thing as a long battle.
Oh god, do you have a shrine next to your desktop for the thing? Are you really claiming that no battle lasts long so long as you have a mattock? What else does it cause? Does Shepard fly, fart Cain blasts and shoot lasers out of his eyes if he's got it?
But seriously, ammo is the only thing Revenant has. It has nothing else speaking for it. If Mattock frequently ran out of ammo, then it would be a serious negative. But it doesnt and hence it isn't.
It shoots 80 times, swn. The only way you could possibly play without ammo ever being a problem is if you used it precisely like a battle rifle. If you need a machine gun, where your sustained damage output is the be all and end all, the Mattock isn't the weapon for it.
Like I said earlier, even in other games very few people would want to trade accuracy and DPS for more ammo. Take counterstrike for example.
Yes, a shooter renowned for it's emphasis on accuracy and realistic damage. Not a biased example in favour of a battle rifle weapon at all.
As long as its not done during a battle its not in Rev's favour. And if the ammo clips are on your way, then where are you losing time?
But what happens if it has to be done in battle? It's only got 80 shots, what if you miss? This is the problem, swn. You don't seem to be capable of comparing the weapons directly. Every single comparison you make is done under a pro-Mattock proviso.
On that we agree, the weapons fully depend on playstyles. Obviously someone else may be able to use Revenant way better than how they use Mattock. Depending on your playstyle these weapons will have strengths or weaknesses.
But thats totally not the point of my posts. If we are comparing weapon potentials only, then Mattock has more potential than Revenant. In the right hands mattock can be more effective than Revenant can ever be.
That's been the problem from the get go, swn. You haven't been comparing 'weapon potentials only'. You've been putting them in contrived situations and apparently expecting your stipulations to be simply accepted. Using such comparisons, you could essentially claim any weapon you want is superior - but the comparison itself is meaningless.
The Mattock is *a lot more versatile*, and it is for this reason I prefer it out of the two. However, if the player prefers the rambo style of play, the Mattock won't be the best choice for them due to the fact that it's advantages are all weighed towards mid-range fighing, and they'd be wasting many of them.
#55
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 08:05
JaegerBane
-
- Members
- 5 441 messages
swn32 wrote...
For some reason, posters on this thread seem to think that a Mattock has to doto outperform the Revenant. The fact is, under those constraints it doesnt merely outperform Revenant, it crushes the revenant. Under normal circumstances it outperforms the revenant.16 rounds in 2 seconds all on target all headshots no misses
You would expect it to positively crush the Rev under such circumstances - you've just exhausted 20% of the weapon's entire ammo supply on a 2-3 opponents. 20% of the Rev's entire ammo supply is 112 shots, more than it can even fit in a single clip, and equates to over 2300 damage vs the 806 damage you've done with a full Mattock clip.
No-one is arguing that the Mattock isn't a front-loaded gun. It's the best weapon in the game for quick takedowns, but has very little stamina. It can't keep up it's heavy DPS for very long.
#56
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 08:41
swn32
-
- Members
- 379 messages
[quote]JaegerBane wrote...
You can't really make that assumption if you're strictly comparing weapon vs weapon. What you'r actually doing there is comparing your performance using the Mattock to your performance using the Revenant. That is an interesting point, but not what the OP asked.[/quote] I'm not comparing against my performance using the Revenant. I never touch that wretched thing. I'm comparing against other youtube videos showing the revenant in action.
[quote]- your argument is along the lines of 'Mattock does everything the Rev can do, so long as you do x, y and z' apparently without realising that doing 'x, y and z' isn't part ot the playstyle the Rev favours.[/quote]
My argument is along the lines that if you are good enough to do x, y, z, then Mattock CRUSHES the Revenant. In other cases it still outperforms the Revenant. I really shouldnt have to repeat myself so often to get a simple point across.
So i'll make the argument clear, in all situations Mattock edges over the Revenant. In some situations Mattock is far superior.
[quote]*Provided the battles are under a certain size and certain steps are taken*. I don't know whether you're intentionally dodging the issue or whether you've become so obsessed with the Mattock that you physically can't process the idea of a situation where the Revenant's greater sustained damage output is useful, but ultimately, your argument is beginning to sound like you're claiming you'll never need the Revenant's superior sustained damage output. [/quote]
Ammo is the only argument Revenant has going for it. The fact that there are ammo clips lying all over the place makes it less of an issue. You can even shoot while picking up clips. The only time I remember having to conserve ammo is during the collector platforms (I still didnt run out of ammo completely).
[quote]You haven't provided an alternative set of stipulations to cover the Revenant.[/quote]
Like you said, Revenant is good at short range against 4 or more enemies. But I disagree with that, mattock is still better under such stipulations. Even with the reload time included, mattock will take them out faster due to its much superior performance in AR. You have to use AR when dealing with 4 or more enemies with the Mattock. If you are trying to do it without AR, you are doing it wrong. Revenant doesn't have that kind of performance in AR. Now dont go arguing that AR shouldnt be used for this comparison. Considering the 3 second cooldown time, you will hardly ever find yourself without AR.
[quote]You're doing precisely that. You're comparing a battle rifle to a machine gun under situations that favour a battlr rifle. [/quote]
Under any situation, the battle rifle is superior. Atleast in other games, LMGs do higher DPS at close range. In this game thats not even the case. The battle rifle still does better DPS at close range. Even against the situations that you claim Revenant is better, Mattock can still outperform if you do it right. If you are doing it wrong, whats the point comparing? Any weapon will start to suck if the player doesn't use it right.
[quote]For example, you insist on a stipulation of going purely for headshots, a stipulation that makes no sense whatsoever to a weapon like the Revenant where you'd primarily be aiming for the chest and simply firing on full auto, as it doesn't have the accuracy to make aimed headshots worthwhile.[/quote]
So I'm putting Revenant at an advantage by assuming it gets all headshots and still it fails to outperform Mattock. If I take that stipulation out, it will make the revenant even worse.
[quote]You stipulate that added care taken into making shots, another blatantly pro-battle rifle stipulation that makes no sense in applying the Rev.
You stipulate 'as long as you tap quickly', which is completely sub-optimal on a full auto weapon.[/quote]
When did I ever say I am applying those stipulations to a revenant. All my comparisons were wrt Revenant on full auto, 100% accuracy. How many times should I repeat that?
[quote]Every step of the way you've been throwing in little caveats purely to gloss over the Mattock's shortcomings[/quote]
The only shortcoming is that it has low ammo which I didnt find an issue.
[quote]You never, for instance, stipulate that the player never intentionally seeks out further ammo, that the player always holds the trigger down at point blank range, that the player always focuses on his opponent - all completely sensible things to do on the Revenant and all would reduce the amount of time required to make on kill after the other, and all would markedly reduce the effectiveness of the Mattock.[/quote] You are comparing a Mattock used wrong vs a Revenant used right. I'm comparing a Mattock used right vs Revenant used ideally (theoretical maximum). I'm not applying the stipulations to both Mattock and Revenant.
[quote]
In short, your test criteria is absurd. You've constructed a situation, step-by-step, that never ever fails to favour the Mattock, and *always* fails to favour the Revenant, and you expect the result of your test to have some meaning. It's ridiculous. Drawing the car/bicycle analogy was being generous. A better one would have probably been to place Stephen Hawking and Mike Tyson in a room with a math problem and used the time they took to solve it to determine who was physically stronger. All you've actually demonstrated that if you choose to use the Revenant as a battle rifle, it isn't going to work as well as... a battle rifle. I mean, no s**t, Sherlock.
[/quote]
All you have actually demonstrated is that you understood NOTHING from my posts.
[quote]Oh god, do you have a shrine next to your desktop for the thing? Are you really claiming that no battle lasts long so long as you have a mattock? What else does it cause? Does Shepard fly, fart Cain blasts and shoot lasers out of his eyes if he's got it?
[/quote] this
[quote]It shoots 80 times, swn. The only way you could possibly play without ammo ever being a problem is if you used it precisely like a battle rifle. If you need a machine gun, where your sustained damage output is the be all and end all, the Mattock isn't the weapon for it.[/quote]
Its not just 80, if you consider all the ammo pickups that you get on the way. The only time you have to be careful are when there isnt enough ammo around, like those damn collector platforms.
[quote]Yes, a shooter renowned for it's emphasis on accuracy and realistic damage. Not a biased example in favour of a battle rifle weapon at all. [/quote] Like there is a shooter that focuses on inaccurate weapons and mindless spraying. You attack my example yet you dont give a counter example.
[quote]But what happens if it has to be done in battle? It's only got 80 shots, what if you miss? This is the problem, swn. You don't seem to be capable of comparing the weapons directly. Every single comparison you make is done under a pro-Mattock proviso.[/quote] I'd be repeating myself for the 100th time if i replied to this.
[quote]That's been the problem from the get go, swn. You haven't been comparing 'weapon potentials only'. You've been putting them in contrived situations and apparently expecting your stipulations to be simply accepted. Using such comparisons, you could essentially claim any weapon you want is superior - but the comparison itself is meaningless.
[/quote]
I've been comparing weapon potentials only. Mattock in the hands of someone who can use it well vs Revenant in a perfectly ideal situation. To prove that Mattock is better than Revenant, its sufficient to prove that it is better than Revenant in a perfectly ideal situation.
[quote]The Mattock is *a lot more versatile*, and it is for this reason I prefer it out of the two. However, if the player prefers the rambo style of play, the Mattock won't be the best choice for them due to the fact that it's advantages are all weighed towards mid-range fighing, and they'd be wasting many of them. [/quote] Style of play is all about preference and has nothing to do with weapon effectiveness. I may choose an inferior weapon if I find it more fun. That has nothing to do with which weapon is better.
[quote]No-one is arguing that the Mattock isn't a front-loaded gun. It's the best weapon in the game for quick takedowns, but has very little stamina. It can't keep up it's heavy DPS for very long.[/quote]
Agreed, but it can keep up its heavy DPS for long enough.
You can't really make that assumption if you're strictly comparing weapon vs weapon. What you'r actually doing there is comparing your performance using the Mattock to your performance using the Revenant. That is an interesting point, but not what the OP asked.[/quote] I'm not comparing against my performance using the Revenant. I never touch that wretched thing. I'm comparing against other youtube videos showing the revenant in action.
[quote]- your argument is along the lines of 'Mattock does everything the Rev can do, so long as you do x, y and z' apparently without realising that doing 'x, y and z' isn't part ot the playstyle the Rev favours.[/quote]
My argument is along the lines that if you are good enough to do x, y, z, then Mattock CRUSHES the Revenant. In other cases it still outperforms the Revenant. I really shouldnt have to repeat myself so often to get a simple point across.
So i'll make the argument clear, in all situations Mattock edges over the Revenant. In some situations Mattock is far superior.
[quote]*Provided the battles are under a certain size and certain steps are taken*. I don't know whether you're intentionally dodging the issue or whether you've become so obsessed with the Mattock that you physically can't process the idea of a situation where the Revenant's greater sustained damage output is useful, but ultimately, your argument is beginning to sound like you're claiming you'll never need the Revenant's superior sustained damage output. [/quote]
Ammo is the only argument Revenant has going for it. The fact that there are ammo clips lying all over the place makes it less of an issue. You can even shoot while picking up clips. The only time I remember having to conserve ammo is during the collector platforms (I still didnt run out of ammo completely).
[quote]You haven't provided an alternative set of stipulations to cover the Revenant.[/quote]
Like you said, Revenant is good at short range against 4 or more enemies. But I disagree with that, mattock is still better under such stipulations. Even with the reload time included, mattock will take them out faster due to its much superior performance in AR. You have to use AR when dealing with 4 or more enemies with the Mattock. If you are trying to do it without AR, you are doing it wrong. Revenant doesn't have that kind of performance in AR. Now dont go arguing that AR shouldnt be used for this comparison. Considering the 3 second cooldown time, you will hardly ever find yourself without AR.
[quote]You're doing precisely that. You're comparing a battle rifle to a machine gun under situations that favour a battlr rifle. [/quote]
Under any situation, the battle rifle is superior. Atleast in other games, LMGs do higher DPS at close range. In this game thats not even the case. The battle rifle still does better DPS at close range. Even against the situations that you claim Revenant is better, Mattock can still outperform if you do it right. If you are doing it wrong, whats the point comparing? Any weapon will start to suck if the player doesn't use it right.
[quote]For example, you insist on a stipulation of going purely for headshots, a stipulation that makes no sense whatsoever to a weapon like the Revenant where you'd primarily be aiming for the chest and simply firing on full auto, as it doesn't have the accuracy to make aimed headshots worthwhile.[/quote]
So I'm putting Revenant at an advantage by assuming it gets all headshots and still it fails to outperform Mattock. If I take that stipulation out, it will make the revenant even worse.
[quote]You stipulate that added care taken into making shots, another blatantly pro-battle rifle stipulation that makes no sense in applying the Rev.
You stipulate 'as long as you tap quickly', which is completely sub-optimal on a full auto weapon.[/quote]
When did I ever say I am applying those stipulations to a revenant. All my comparisons were wrt Revenant on full auto, 100% accuracy. How many times should I repeat that?
[quote]Every step of the way you've been throwing in little caveats purely to gloss over the Mattock's shortcomings[/quote]
The only shortcoming is that it has low ammo which I didnt find an issue.
[quote]You never, for instance, stipulate that the player never intentionally seeks out further ammo, that the player always holds the trigger down at point blank range, that the player always focuses on his opponent - all completely sensible things to do on the Revenant and all would reduce the amount of time required to make on kill after the other, and all would markedly reduce the effectiveness of the Mattock.[/quote] You are comparing a Mattock used wrong vs a Revenant used right. I'm comparing a Mattock used right vs Revenant used ideally (theoretical maximum). I'm not applying the stipulations to both Mattock and Revenant.
[quote]
In short, your test criteria is absurd. You've constructed a situation, step-by-step, that never ever fails to favour the Mattock, and *always* fails to favour the Revenant, and you expect the result of your test to have some meaning. It's ridiculous. Drawing the car/bicycle analogy was being generous. A better one would have probably been to place Stephen Hawking and Mike Tyson in a room with a math problem and used the time they took to solve it to determine who was physically stronger. All you've actually demonstrated that if you choose to use the Revenant as a battle rifle, it isn't going to work as well as... a battle rifle. I mean, no s**t, Sherlock.
[/quote]
All you have actually demonstrated is that you understood NOTHING from my posts.
[quote]Oh god, do you have a shrine next to your desktop for the thing? Are you really claiming that no battle lasts long so long as you have a mattock? What else does it cause? Does Shepard fly, fart Cain blasts and shoot lasers out of his eyes if he's got it?
[/quote] this
[quote]It shoots 80 times, swn. The only way you could possibly play without ammo ever being a problem is if you used it precisely like a battle rifle. If you need a machine gun, where your sustained damage output is the be all and end all, the Mattock isn't the weapon for it.[/quote]
Its not just 80, if you consider all the ammo pickups that you get on the way. The only time you have to be careful are when there isnt enough ammo around, like those damn collector platforms.
[quote]Yes, a shooter renowned for it's emphasis on accuracy and realistic damage. Not a biased example in favour of a battle rifle weapon at all. [/quote] Like there is a shooter that focuses on inaccurate weapons and mindless spraying. You attack my example yet you dont give a counter example.
[quote]But what happens if it has to be done in battle? It's only got 80 shots, what if you miss? This is the problem, swn. You don't seem to be capable of comparing the weapons directly. Every single comparison you make is done under a pro-Mattock proviso.[/quote] I'd be repeating myself for the 100th time if i replied to this.
[quote]That's been the problem from the get go, swn. You haven't been comparing 'weapon potentials only'. You've been putting them in contrived situations and apparently expecting your stipulations to be simply accepted. Using such comparisons, you could essentially claim any weapon you want is superior - but the comparison itself is meaningless.
[/quote]
I've been comparing weapon potentials only. Mattock in the hands of someone who can use it well vs Revenant in a perfectly ideal situation. To prove that Mattock is better than Revenant, its sufficient to prove that it is better than Revenant in a perfectly ideal situation.
[quote]The Mattock is *a lot more versatile*, and it is for this reason I prefer it out of the two. However, if the player prefers the rambo style of play, the Mattock won't be the best choice for them due to the fact that it's advantages are all weighed towards mid-range fighing, and they'd be wasting many of them. [/quote] Style of play is all about preference and has nothing to do with weapon effectiveness. I may choose an inferior weapon if I find it more fun. That has nothing to do with which weapon is better.
[quote]No-one is arguing that the Mattock isn't a front-loaded gun. It's the best weapon in the game for quick takedowns, but has very little stamina. It can't keep up it's heavy DPS for very long.[/quote]
Agreed, but it can keep up its heavy DPS for long enough.
Modifié par swn32, 01 octobre 2010 - 08:44 .
#57
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 10:57
JaegerBane
-
- Members
- 5 441 messages
Swn, you're repeating exactly the same argument as you did originally and you don't seem to have grasped what I was putting forward, so I'm not going to bother repeating exactly the same response to the same points.
However, the one new thing you did put forward is below, and it perfectly demonstrates why you've arrived at your conclusion:
This would be true if we were comparing two similar weapons.
The problem is the Mattock and the Revenant are polar opposites. They're even more different than the Widow and the Viper. They're chalk and cheese. They don't function in the same way. They're not intended for the same task. They don't have the same characteristics. The only reason they sit in the same slot at all is because of the legacy of how ME1 handled it's weapon types.
You're effectively claiming that playstyle has no bearing on the weapon. This is a patently ludicrous statement - using that logic I could take shotguns away from Vanguards and replace them with Sniper Rifles, and we'd see no difference. It's one of the single daftest things I've heard on this forum, and it's indicative of how blinkered your argument has become.
These two weapons emphasise completely different methods of play. They have different characteristics which translate into a set of advantages and disadvantages. Your chosen method of play will make more use of certain advantages than it will of others. The mistake you're making is that you're seeing both weapon's charateristics under the context of how your prefer to play. It's no wonder that you demonstrate such a level of fanaticism over one weapon, since you're not even trying to take a step back and take a rational view of the two.
Take this, for example:
You're all too willing to use hard numbers to justify the advantages of the Mattock, but when it comes to discussing the Mattock's weak spots, you're content to make do with wishy-washy nonsense like 'it lasts long enough'. That is completely meaningless in the type of argument you're trying to have. ME 2 Battles are dictated by hundreds of different factors ranging from the amount of cover and the type of enemy all the way down to the mission objectives, so to decree that the specific amount of time the Mattock can keep it's DPS up - even against types of enemies where the Mattock physically cannot deal enough damage to handle the enemy before it burns out - as 'long enough' only shows just how blinkered the whole point is.
If the point that the Mattock is more versatile, then yes, that is true. If the point is that the Mattock has a higher DPS, that is also true. The Mattock definitely has more advantages then the Revenant, no question - but if your entire playstyle revolves around positioning and maintaining a high damage output for a relatively long time, the simple fact of the matter is that your definition of 'long enough' is likely to be insufficient for someone else, and whichever weapon best fits the bill will be the optimal choice, which is the entire point behind the OP's question.
It comes down to this, swn - either you're too stupid to understand the effect of the different characteristics (something I frankly don't believe given the articulation of your argument) or you've locked yourself into a selection bias where you will refuse to consider or gloss over anything negative about the Mattock - in either case, there's little point continuing the debate, since it's just going to go in circles. I can only hope the OP can recognise the point being made here -
That these two weapons are too different to compare directly and expect to glean anything meaningful from the comparison. The only way they can be meaningfully compared is under the context of the player's preferred style.
However, the one new thing you did put forward is below, and it perfectly demonstrates why you've arrived at your conclusion:
swn32 wrote...
Style of play is all about preference and has nothing to do with weapon effectiveness. I may choose an inferior weapon if I find it more fun. That has nothing to do with which weapon is better.
This would be true if we were comparing two similar weapons.
The problem is the Mattock and the Revenant are polar opposites. They're even more different than the Widow and the Viper. They're chalk and cheese. They don't function in the same way. They're not intended for the same task. They don't have the same characteristics. The only reason they sit in the same slot at all is because of the legacy of how ME1 handled it's weapon types.
You're effectively claiming that playstyle has no bearing on the weapon. This is a patently ludicrous statement - using that logic I could take shotguns away from Vanguards and replace them with Sniper Rifles, and we'd see no difference. It's one of the single daftest things I've heard on this forum, and it's indicative of how blinkered your argument has become.
These two weapons emphasise completely different methods of play. They have different characteristics which translate into a set of advantages and disadvantages. Your chosen method of play will make more use of certain advantages than it will of others. The mistake you're making is that you're seeing both weapon's charateristics under the context of how your prefer to play. It's no wonder that you demonstrate such a level of fanaticism over one weapon, since you're not even trying to take a step back and take a rational view of the two.
Take this, for example:
Agreed, but it can keep up its heavy DPS for long enough.
You're all too willing to use hard numbers to justify the advantages of the Mattock, but when it comes to discussing the Mattock's weak spots, you're content to make do with wishy-washy nonsense like 'it lasts long enough'. That is completely meaningless in the type of argument you're trying to have. ME 2 Battles are dictated by hundreds of different factors ranging from the amount of cover and the type of enemy all the way down to the mission objectives, so to decree that the specific amount of time the Mattock can keep it's DPS up - even against types of enemies where the Mattock physically cannot deal enough damage to handle the enemy before it burns out - as 'long enough' only shows just how blinkered the whole point is.
If the point that the Mattock is more versatile, then yes, that is true. If the point is that the Mattock has a higher DPS, that is also true. The Mattock definitely has more advantages then the Revenant, no question - but if your entire playstyle revolves around positioning and maintaining a high damage output for a relatively long time, the simple fact of the matter is that your definition of 'long enough' is likely to be insufficient for someone else, and whichever weapon best fits the bill will be the optimal choice, which is the entire point behind the OP's question.
It comes down to this, swn - either you're too stupid to understand the effect of the different characteristics (something I frankly don't believe given the articulation of your argument) or you've locked yourself into a selection bias where you will refuse to consider or gloss over anything negative about the Mattock - in either case, there's little point continuing the debate, since it's just going to go in circles. I can only hope the OP can recognise the point being made here -
That these two weapons are too different to compare directly and expect to glean anything meaningful from the comparison. The only way they can be meaningfully compared is under the context of the player's preferred style.
#58
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 11:45
swn32
-
- Members
- 379 messages
Yes they are totally different weapons. One of them is for pray and spray, the other is for clinical takedowns. They dont function the same way thats true, but Mattock can potentially outperform Revenant in every situation (except long battles with no ammo clips in sight, rare circumstance). Its not the same with shotguns and snipers. You cannot use a sniper effectively at close range and vice versa. Thats the whole point I'm trying to make.
If this happened to be a multiplayer game, this discussion wouldve ended long back and no one wouldve sided with Revenant (just like how no one chooses m249 over aug in CS). But since its a singleplayer game you are free to choose whichever weapon you find more fun. In your case that might be the Revenant. But that wasn't the point of my posts at all. The point of my posts wasnt which weapon fit your playstyle, rather which weapon was more potent. No one is forcing you to like the mattock or even have fun using it. Its just a comparison of performance. Which weapon can do what its meant to do faster, and that is kill anything that moves.
Factors like cover favor the mattock more than the revenant. Using the mattock you have to expose yourself less out of cover to maintain its DPS, much more with the revenant. You can do all the reloading you while in cover. This way the DPS penalty due to reloading is mitigated since you are also regenerating your shields at the same time. While looking for ammo, you can simultaneously shoot at enemies, thus mitigating the DPS penalty due to scavenging for ammo. Also take note that I'm not saying all factors favor mattock more than revenant. Factors like endless battles with no ammo pickups will definitely favour Revenant where total damage output is more important than DPS.
The OP asked "Which one is better and why?" thats it. Given the playstyles and skill level, weapon preferences change. Thats true with every game. My playstyle favors mattock and I find it more fun, others may not. But potentially, Mattock can kill faster than revenant and you have to expose yourself out of cover less to maintain its performance.
I have already agreed multiple times that Mattock's shortcoming is its ammo. Try playing with the Mattock without the ammo cap and you'll know that it has no other shortcomings. But to me the short ammo cap is a small price to pay for the insane DPS and accuracy.
One more thing I want to say is that for Vanguard's and Infiltrators, it seems that their class powers are built for their special weapons. Claymore works brilliantly with charge and Widow with cloak. Revenant doesn't work as good as the Mattock with AR.
If this happened to be a multiplayer game, this discussion wouldve ended long back and no one wouldve sided with Revenant (just like how no one chooses m249 over aug in CS). But since its a singleplayer game you are free to choose whichever weapon you find more fun. In your case that might be the Revenant. But that wasn't the point of my posts at all. The point of my posts wasnt which weapon fit your playstyle, rather which weapon was more potent. No one is forcing you to like the mattock or even have fun using it. Its just a comparison of performance. Which weapon can do what its meant to do faster, and that is kill anything that moves.
Factors like cover favor the mattock more than the revenant. Using the mattock you have to expose yourself less out of cover to maintain its DPS, much more with the revenant. You can do all the reloading you while in cover. This way the DPS penalty due to reloading is mitigated since you are also regenerating your shields at the same time. While looking for ammo, you can simultaneously shoot at enemies, thus mitigating the DPS penalty due to scavenging for ammo. Also take note that I'm not saying all factors favor mattock more than revenant. Factors like endless battles with no ammo pickups will definitely favour Revenant where total damage output is more important than DPS.
If the point that the Mattock is more versatile, then yes, that is true. If the point is that the Mattock has a higher DPS, that is also true. The Mattock definitely has more advantages then the Revenant, no question - but if your entire playstyle revolves around positioning and maintaining a high damage output for a relatively long time, the simple fact of the matter is that your definition of 'long enough' is likely to be insufficient for someone else, and whichever weapon best fits the bill will be the optimal choice, which is the entire point behind the OP's question.
The OP asked "Which one is better and why?" thats it. Given the playstyles and skill level, weapon preferences change. Thats true with every game. My playstyle favors mattock and I find it more fun, others may not. But potentially, Mattock can kill faster than revenant and you have to expose yourself out of cover less to maintain its performance.
It comes down to this, swn - either you're too stupid to understand the effect of the different characteristics (something I frankly don't believe given the articulation of your argument) or you've locked yourself into a selection bias where you will refuse to consider or gloss over anything negative about the Mattock - in either case, there's little point continuing the debate, since it's just going to go in circles. I can only hope the OP can recognise the point being made here
I have already agreed multiple times that Mattock's shortcoming is its ammo. Try playing with the Mattock without the ammo cap and you'll know that it has no other shortcomings. But to me the short ammo cap is a small price to pay for the insane DPS and accuracy.
One more thing I want to say is that for Vanguard's and Infiltrators, it seems that their class powers are built for their special weapons. Claymore works brilliantly with charge and Widow with cloak. Revenant doesn't work as good as the Mattock with AR.
Modifié par swn32, 01 octobre 2010 - 11:48 .
#59
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 12:20
ryoldschool
-
- Members
- 4 161 messages
hey, the point is that the mattock is a good replacement for the revenant - so you can take the widow with no reservations on the collector ship. In that decision, the real comparison is between the { ( mattock or vindicator ) + widow } vs { revenant + viper }. Its an easy decision if you are trying to have the most powerful combination. On xbox I can't get as many shots off as swn32 in that video ( I assume warp ammo ), but it can certainly deal a lot of damage in a short time when you need to.
#60
Posté 01 octobre 2010 - 02:53
SmokeyNinjas
-
- Members
- 448 messages
For me Mattock>Revenant no question as it out performs the Revenant is every area but ammo count which is nicely offset by the high amount of ammo you get back from each pick up with the Mattock anyway so i've never had any issue with the Mattock running out of ammo which for me renders the Revenants one & only advantage ammo count redundant.
#61
Guest_Lonewolf1185_*
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 03:58
Guest_Lonewolf1185_*
Guest_Lonewolf1185_*
-
- Guests
As I went through the posts I wondered what difficulty you are all playing? I can see how the mattock is a beast on hardcore or below, I loved my hardcore play through with it, best damage per round of an assault rifle.
the rev is a beast at short to mid range, but mattock ices it at long range, like having an unscoped sniper rifle.
but on Insanity as a commando, or shock trooper there have been parts where I have run out of ammo with the mattock w/ full upgrades, appropriate heavy ammo power (i don't use cryo ammo) even with lots of either AR lvl4 spamming and kestrel armor, some fights i have ended up draining ammo for my other weapons too, with not enough thermal clips for the next area.
besides missing on shots from mid to long range and placing a few too many rounds in a fresh corpse, having at least twelve to sixteen more rounds on the mattock would do the trick on 360 for some heavy fights, I really hate fighting scions and husks with the semi-autos!
for me at least, it's tough on some maps to be running around getting thermal clips out in the open with how quickly my shields get wasted during a fight and with how the enemy aggresively tries to out flank me and the squad, especially harbinger.
I play on the 360, so it seems from what I'm reading that the mattock aims better with a mouse and fires faster than with the xbox 360 controller, so preference could be slightly influenced by that difference.
right now I've restarted with a lvl 30 commando with the geth pulse rifle with tungsten, till I get the accuracy upgrade for the rev, its been slower advancing but still have like 150-200 rounds after a heavy fight compared to the 0-0 i get with the mattock.
excuse the long post
, cheers
the rev is a beast at short to mid range, but mattock ices it at long range, like having an unscoped sniper rifle.
but on Insanity as a commando, or shock trooper there have been parts where I have run out of ammo with the mattock w/ full upgrades, appropriate heavy ammo power (i don't use cryo ammo) even with lots of either AR lvl4 spamming and kestrel armor, some fights i have ended up draining ammo for my other weapons too, with not enough thermal clips for the next area.
besides missing on shots from mid to long range and placing a few too many rounds in a fresh corpse, having at least twelve to sixteen more rounds on the mattock would do the trick on 360 for some heavy fights, I really hate fighting scions and husks with the semi-autos!
for me at least, it's tough on some maps to be running around getting thermal clips out in the open with how quickly my shields get wasted during a fight and with how the enemy aggresively tries to out flank me and the squad, especially harbinger.
I play on the 360, so it seems from what I'm reading that the mattock aims better with a mouse and fires faster than with the xbox 360 controller, so preference could be slightly influenced by that difference.
right now I've restarted with a lvl 30 commando with the geth pulse rifle with tungsten, till I get the accuracy upgrade for the rev, its been slower advancing but still have like 150-200 rounds after a heavy fight compared to the 0-0 i get with the mattock.
excuse the long post
, cheers
#62
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 06:03
swn32
-
- Members
- 379 messages
Lonewolf1185 wrote...
I play on the 360, so it seems from what I'm reading that the mattock aims better with a mouse and fires faster than with the xbox 360 controller, so preference could be slightly influenced by that difference.
That's probably the reason. To use Mattock to its full potential, its necessary to quickly and accurately aim as well as rapidly tap the fire button. I can see why this would be considerably harder on a controller. In that case you are better off with the Revenant.
#63
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 06:21
EffectedByTheMasses
-
- Members
- 539 messages
Hm.
Does anyone know if the mattock is substantially weaker on xbox due to slower ROF, since xbox trigger is harder to press than a mouse button?
Does anyone know if the mattock is substantially weaker on xbox due to slower ROF, since xbox trigger is harder to press than a mouse button?
#64
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 06:43
Atmosfear3
-
- Members
- 1 654 messages
Under AR, the Mattock is a beast.
Without AR, the Mattock is just a stronger Predator pistol.
So the real question is, for me at the very least, is would I rather sit and wait for AR to cooldown then continue firing, or would I rather be able to put more rounds down range at all times, AR or not?
Without AR, the Mattock is just a stronger Predator pistol.
So the real question is, for me at the very least, is would I rather sit and wait for AR to cooldown then continue firing, or would I rather be able to put more rounds down range at all times, AR or not?
#65
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 07:00
swn32
-
- Members
- 379 messages
Atmosfear3 wrote...
Without AR, the Mattock is just a stronger Predator pistol.
No, you're doing it wrong.
#66
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 07:07
IMNWME
-
- Members
- 235 messages
swn32 is correct, Mattock is the better AR, by far, in-game. It lays down suppressive fire better, shoots from long-range better, and takes down tough enemies faster. The ammo cap is a hindrance, but it's mitigated by the fact that you have the freakin' Widow.
Of course, if you want to use one gun all day, every day, rain or shine, then yeah, take the Revenant, I guess. You should at least once, just for the experience since it's unique to the Soldier class.
Of course, if you want to use one gun all day, every day, rain or shine, then yeah, take the Revenant, I guess. You should at least once, just for the experience since it's unique to the Soldier class.
#67
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 03:44
Atmosfear3
-
- Members
- 1 654 messages
swn32 wrote...
Atmosfear3 wrote...
Without AR, the Mattock is just a stronger Predator pistol.
No, you're doing it wrong.
No, I think you're just wrong and biased.
Under AR, the Mattock is hands down the strongest rifle in the game. Without AR, it is simply not worth firing since the damage is weaker and your ammo won't count as much. So far, the only times I've fired the Mattock without AR is when an enemy has a sliver of health left or if I'm desperate because theres a charging enemy coming at me (i.e. FENRIS mechs or varren).
P.S. lol at suppressive fire. Theres no blindfire in the game and enemies take cover almost in a robotic fashion, whether or not they are taking fire.
#68
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 04:47
jbblue05
-
- Members
- 1 480 messages
I prefer the Revvy on my soldier, the mattock on the soldier is too boring and overpowered with AR. to me
Spamming AR with the Mattock makes fights way too easy you might as well play on veteran or lower
The Revenant isn't spray and pray. I can shoot full auto and have as many bullets hit as I do with the mattock.at medium range
I agree Mattock kills faster at all ranges its only limitaion is ammo count but since your killing enemies with a couple rounds in AR ammo count is barely a problem.
Revenant and the Claymore need a patch DLC weapons shouldn't replace the best weapons in the original game
Spamming AR with the Mattock makes fights way too easy you might as well play on veteran or lower
The Revenant isn't spray and pray. I can shoot full auto and have as many bullets hit as I do with the mattock.at medium range
I agree Mattock kills faster at all ranges its only limitaion is ammo count but since your killing enemies with a couple rounds in AR ammo count is barely a problem.
Revenant and the Claymore need a patch DLC weapons shouldn't replace the best weapons in the original game
#69
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 05:01
Teknor
-
- Members
- 724 messages
jbblue05 wrote...
Revenant and the Claymore need a patch DLC weapons shouldn't replace the best weapons in the original game
Claymore was never the best, man.
#70
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 05:52
Anglerfish
-
- Members
- 194 messages
Here is Mordin Solus's opinion on the mattock and the revenant - apparently he has played a lot of ME2:
[Click to enlarge]
He makes some other valid points too.
[Click to enlarge]
He makes some other valid points too.
Modifié par Anglerfish, 02 octobre 2010 - 05:56 .
#71
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 07:45
Athenau
-
- Members
- 728 messages
Under AR, the Mattock is hands down the strongest rifle in the game. Without AR, it is simply not worth firing since the damage is weaker and your ammo won't count as much. So far, the only times I've fired the Mattock without AR is when an enemy has a sliver of health left or if I'm desperate because theres a charging enemy coming at me (i.e. FENRIS mechs or varren).
You make it sound like you'd constantly run out of ammo by firing the Mattock outside of AR. I don't find this to be the case at all.
Without AR the Mattock is like a scopeless Viper with more ammo per pickup. So, worst case it's about as good as a weapon that almost everyone agrees is a beast. I don't see how that's a problem.
#72
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 07:47
swn32
-
- Members
- 379 messages
Atmosfear3 wrote...
Without AR, it is simply not worth firing since the damage is weaker and your ammo won't count as much.
Weaker when compared to itself in AR. Still stronger than revenant.
Modifié par swn32, 02 octobre 2010 - 07:47 .
#73
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 08:49
sinosleep
-
- Members
- 3 038 messages
swn32 wrote...
Weaker when compared to itself in AR. Still stronger than revenant.
It all depends on how fast you can click. I mean you say it's easy, and I consider myself a pretty good tps/fps player (one of my favorite genres and usually do pretty well online), but I can't for the life of me average the 8 shots per second you need to out damage other weapons out of AR. I agree with you that within AR the mattock decimates all, and if you can average 8 shots per second it continues to do well out of AR, but I can't aim and click the mouse that quickly myself. I tend drop off at around 6 rounds. I don't think being unable to click that fast translates into, you're doing it wrong.
Modifié par sinosleep, 02 octobre 2010 - 08:50 .
#74
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 09:02
Ares Caesar
-
- Members
- 1 288 messages
EffectedByTheMasses wrote...
Hm.
Does anyone know if the mattock is substantially weaker on xbox due to slower ROF, since xbox trigger is harder to press than a mouse button?
I wouldnt say substantially weaker, but YES you are right. The Mattock is not quite the beast that the PC players are able to make it into.
I watch the videos of people on PC using the mattock with almost full auto sounding fire rate, where as I can NEVER (even when just shooting into a wall) get it to fire as fast as I could with the tap of a keyboard key.
On Xbox 360, its definitely A LOT closer... the Mattock if you have good aim, probably wins, but the Revenant is very close behind if you arent good at headshots, especially since ammo will never even be an issue, where as the Mattock it is only sometimes an issue (I think the ammo is pretty good since the pickups are HUGE for it)
PC people definitely make the Mattock look insane though, and I can understand why a lot of the PC Mattock players would favor it.
#75
Posté 02 octobre 2010 - 09:20
Athenau
-
- Members
- 728 messages
I tend drop off at around 6 rounds. I don't think being unable to click that fast translates into, you're doing it wrong.
But even six rounds per second is, what, just slightly weaker than the Viper dps-wise? And the Viper has amazing dps. So it's not like you're getting a gimpy weapon outside of AR.
