221 réponses à ce sujet

[tobynator89]

I think your mom should be nerfed

[Xeranx]

dujh wrote...

it's way op especialy when your a soldier using heightend adrenaleine rush.
dont get me wrong i love the mattock it's just that since i got the weapons pack i havent touched the avenger, vindicator, geth pulse rifle or even the revenant, the other weapons in the pack seemed to be a little bit more balanced and i tend to use all three heavy pistols and the only shotgun i never use is the katana. so what do you guys and gals think, should the assult rifles in me3 be a bit more balanced?

This is NOT an MMO.  You can CHOOSE to NOT USE the mattock.  I don't know what about simple choices like that eludes some people.

[konfeta]

This is NOT an MMO. You can CHOOSE to NOT USE the mattock. I don't know what about simple choices like that eludes some people.

Terrible argument. Let's make Adept biotics automatically work on any target. Playing an Adept now trivializes combat. You can totally CHOOSE NOT TO PLAY THE ADEPT... when in reality the choice has been made for people who actually like the idea of the Adept but are prevented from enjoying the game while playing as one because its now mind numbingly easy no matter what you do.

Same principle applies to weapons, or really, to anything. If it turns combat into a chore by making it tedious or makign it too easy, it is effectively a choice restricted by incompetent execution of a good idea.

Modifié par konfeta, 07 juillet 2011 - 05:14 .

[Eurhetemec]

konfeta wrote...

Same principle applies to weapons, or really, to anything. If it turns combat into a chore by making it tedious or makign it too easy, it is effectively a choice restricted by incompetent execution of a good idea.

Thank god at least one in five people understands this issue.

[Aimi]

I don't understand what the problem is with admitting that the Mattock doesn't work properly under Adrenaline Rush and should be fixed.  I mean, I love the Mattock and I think it's broken for Soldiers.

Modifié par daqs, 07 juillet 2011 - 05:33 .

[ArkkAngel007]

I have no problem with the Mattock. And really, it's just a heavy pistol with a higher shots per minute. The Vindicator Battle Rifle (Hopefully that's the right name) is very similar in power and accuracy, it just shoots bursts instead of a single shot. If this were Battlefield, Call of Duty, or some MMO, perhaps the firing speed would be an issue, but this isn't. If you are finding it too easy to go through enemies with it, use another rifle or play on Insanity. With the enemies being hardier, smarter, and more variable in Mass Effect 3, as well as what will be more brutal higher difficulties, the Mattock is just fine.

[ryoldschool]

lazuli wrote...

Reapinger wrote...

Also the vanguard with the claymore was awful. One shot + reload on insanity = dead. 

lol

That guy ( Reapinger ) evidently does not visit the builds forum.

[Team Value]

This "only MP games should be balanced" idea is baffling.

[ArkkAngel007]

And to clarify, this was included in the DLC pack with the laser-sighted heavy pistol and Geth plasma shotgun? If so, both of the other guns are very powerful with adrenaline rush, so should they be nerfed too? These guns weren't included in the main game (not sure of Playstation version) because they are indeed very, very powerful (ex: GPS can strip a YMIR Mech's shields with one shot I believe on Hard).

[Han Shot First]

Someone With Mass wrote...

You know what the funny thing is? It may have more power than the other rifles, but the total damage of every shot from the Mattock is 4334.4, compared to the Avenger's 5184.

If there's any rifle that should be nerfed, it's the Revenant, since it has a total damage of 12 929.1. Keep in mind that this damage is done if every singe shot hits and I haven't taken the multipliers against certain protections into account.

The Revenant dishes out a lot of damage but it isn't an accurate weapon at long distances. Nerfing damage dealt by the Revenant would just make it useless, since then it would be both inaccurate and weak. IMO It is fine as it is right now, with a good balance between damage versus accuracy.

Modifié par Han Shot First, 07 juillet 2011 - 05:53 .

[Ryzaki]

Huh. I don't use the Mattock.  (I don't play soldiers. Just adepts or infiltrators). 
 
It's that good?

Modifié par Ryzaki, 07 juillet 2011 - 06:01 .

[Aimi]

Mattock is a good weapon to have for an Adept - it's up next to the GPS in terms of usefulness, honestly - but it's only broken for Soldiers because of the firing rate under Adrenaline Rush.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

And to clarify, this was included in the DLC pack with the laser-sighted heavy pistol and Geth plasma shotgun? If so, both of the other guns are very powerful with adrenaline rush, so should they be nerfed too? These guns weren't included in the main game (not sure of Playstation version) because they are indeed very, very powerful (ex: GPS can strip a YMIR Mech's shields with one shot I believe on Hard).

GPS is a poor choice during Adrenaline Rush because of its ridiculously long charge-up time - even firing uncharged shots takes forever, and I think your damage under Adrenaline Rush is pretty poor.  Same with the Phalanx, although it's not nearly as bad as the GPS.  The Mattock, on the other hand, has no real limitations to how fast you can fire - it's as fast as you can pull the trigger, basically, with a hardcoded upper limit that even Starcraft players might have issues getting to.

Modifié par daqs, 07 juillet 2011 - 06:06 .

[ArkkAngel007]

Team Value wrote...

This "only MP games should be balanced" idea is baffling.

I used this only as an example.  There are indeed SP games that need balance, like Elder Scrolls IV's leveling system or duplicate item bug.  But these are things that truly break the game.  Debating on a DLC weapon that you made the choice to spend actual money on (again, assuming PC or 360) and that was advertised as powerful weapons for players who wanted an additional punch to their load outs is a bit ridiculous, no offense intended.  

I understand those who like the gun but feel its a bit overpowered, of which I am in that camp, but I still find it odd to debate its properties for the next game when we don't know exactly what's all been done to the combat in the game nor how the changes to enemy types and A.I. will factor in.

[Miroslav_s46]

Team Value wrote...

This "only MP games should be balanced" idea is baffling.

Yeah it's quite tiring, i bought the firepower DLC because i don't have the cerberus Network (used ME2 copy) and suddenly i find the soldier owning scions easily.

It was alright after some playtroughs, but when i wanted to use the vindicator or the Revenanth, they were just to weak.

So balance is important, because then this turns from our beloved ME into a game with a cheap beating formula you just ditch after beating it one time


Yea

[ArkkAngel007]

daqs wrote...

Mattock is a good weapon to have for an Adept - it's up next to the GPS in terms of usefulness, honestly - but it's only broken for Soldiers because of the firing rate under Adrenaline Rush.

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

And to clarify, this was included in the DLC pack with the laser-sighted heavy pistol and Geth plasma shotgun? If so, both of the other guns are very powerful with adrenaline rush, so should they be nerfed too? These guns weren't included in the main game (not sure of Playstation version) because they are indeed very, very powerful (ex: GPS can strip a YMIR Mech's shields with one shot I believe on Hard).

GPS is a poor choice during Adrenaline Rush because of its ridiculously long charge-up time - even firing uncharged shots takes forever, and I think your damage under Adrenaline Rush is pretty poor.  Same with the Phalanx, although it's not nearly as bad as the GPS.  The Mattock, on the other hand, has no real limitations to how fast you can fire - it's as fast as you can pull the trigger, basically, with a hardcoded upper limit that even Starcraft players might have issues getting to.

I don't use GPS that often, except on the YMIRs and certain sub-bosses.  If they have shields I usually use a sniper rifle, and armored/normal enemy types usually get head shots with the Phalanx (at least the last play through I'm going through).  It really is just about play styles.  Some people enjoy overpowered weapons and breeze through, while others want a challenge.  My point though, which I should have clarified, as these were marketed as over powered weapons.  The Phalanx has a slow rate of fire, the GPS has to charge, and the Mattock has a smaller clip to help balance.  Maybe more work could have been done on the Mattock, but its not like these were included in the base-game from the start.

[ArkkAngel007]

Ryzaki wrote...

Huh. I don't use the Mattock.  (I don't play soldiers. Just adepts or infiltrators). 
 
It's that good?

It pretty much tears through the basic enemy types and it makes the gunship battles dramatically easier.  Some of the hardier types such as scions it doesn't have too much of an effect on above the others, but it still makes the game way too easy on lower difficulties and has an impact on the higher ones.

[Xeranx]

konfeta wrote...

This is NOT an MMO. You can CHOOSE to NOT USE the mattock. I don't know what about simple choices like that eludes some people.

Terrible argument. Let's make Adept biotics automatically work on any target. Playing an Adept now trivializes combat. You can totally CHOOSE NOT TO PLAY THE ADEPT... when in reality the choice has been made for people who actually like the idea of the Adept but are prevented from enjoying the game while playing as one because its now mind numbingly easy no matter what you do.

Same principle applies to weapons, or really, to anything. If it turns combat into a chore by making it tedious or makign it too easy, it is effectively a choice restricted by incompetent execution of a good idea.

Actually it's a terrible argument to want to reduce one weapon's effectiveness if you're advocating that the other weapons should be improved.  Why?  Because it's entirely negative.  You're not asking for balance when you ask for something to be reduced in power if everything else can't do the job of what you're complaining about.  The people asking for nerfs never realize this.  Because one thing works well you can't be happy with it.  You want that thing that's "overpowered" to share the same misery as everything else that is underpowered in comparison.  What kind of sense does that make?

As to the adept, what game are you playing?  The ONLY time an adept has any ease in combat is after they whittle down defenses of enemies before using biotics.  My first run was with my soldier.  Even at the lowest level of adrenaline rush I was reducing things faster than my adept could.  It's entirely funny that you would mention the adept trivializes combat considering they have it harder than soldier, vanguard, infiltrator, and sentinel.  Four above it.  I don't know about engineer because I don't play as an engineer.  You strike me as the type that hates casting classes just because you hate the idea of casting classes.  How true that is I don't know and ultimately I don't care.  You've ruined your argument by mentioning anything about the trivialization of combat with adepts.

[Ryzaki]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...
It pretty much tears through the basic enemy types and it makes the gunship battles dramatically easier.  Some of the hardier types such as scions it doesn't have too much of an effect on above the others, but it still makes the game way too easy on lower difficulties and has an impact on the higher ones.

 

Oh. 

Huh. I never could bother trading my SMG for AR I love the SMGs too much. 

[Tyrannosaurus Rex]

Arcian wrote...

CaptainZaysh wrote...

Right now the Mattock is the COD M14, and the Avenger is like a stupid pointless pop gun.

That's because the Avenger is an early tier weapon that's supposed to be replaced later in the game by better weapons. It's game progress.

Which is an incredible stupid idea that needs to be ditched when your game only has 5 (one of them some players wll never see and a second being DLC) Assault riffles. It is even worse since ME2 is not really following the traditional RPG formula. As it is now. The game really needs a good standard assault rifle that is on par with the rest of the guns. The Avenge does not currently forfill this role since it is so terrible.

The deal with the Mattock is that you paid actual money for it. Your
reward is a powerful weapon you can use almost right from the start
instead of having to play through half the game to get it. If you don't
like it, don't use it.

It seems clear that the Mattock will be part of ME3's maingame jugding by the two demos. So it is understandable that people wish to make it slightly less godlike in ME3. Because nothing is worse than when a player has to give themself a handicap in order to get any challenge out of a single-player game.

[konfeta]

Actually it's a terrible argument to want to reduce one weapon's
effectiveness if you're advocating that the other weapons should be
improved.  Why?  Because it's entirely negative.  You're not asking for
balance when you ask for something to be reduced in power if everything
else can't do the job of what you're complaining about.  The people
asking for nerfs never realize this.  Because one thing works well you
can't be happy with it.  You want that thing that's "overpowered" to
share the same misery as everything else that is underpowered in
comparison.  What kind of sense does that make?

Um. It makes perfect sense when you stop and consider that there exists a spectrum of weapon power that can be summarized as: "Too weak <--> Normal <---> Too Good" and that you want all weapons to fall under the "Normal" tab - feel good/fun to use, are useful, don't make the game too easy, don't overshadow other aspects of combat.

You know.... Balanced. Not pea-shooter. Not god-slayer. Balanced.

As to the adept,
what game are you playing?  The ONLY time an adept has any ease in
combat is after they whittle down defenses of enemies before using
biotics.  My first run was with my soldier.  Even at the lowest level of
adrenaline rush I was reducing things faster than my adept could.  It's
entirely funny that you would mention the adept trivializes combat
considering they have it harder than soldier, vanguard, infiltrator, and
sentinel.  Four above it.  I don't know about engineer because I don't
play as an engineer.  You strike me as the type that hates casting
classes just because you hate the idea of casting classes.  How true
that is I don't know and ultimately I don't care.  You've ruined your
argument by mentioning anything about the trivialization of combat with
adepts.

Um. What does the current state of class balance have anything to do with a hypothetical example of where Adepts are explicitely made godmode to demonstrate a point? What does my preference for class type (incidently, I always play caster archetypes first) has ANYTHING TO DO with the argument I was making?

Let me clarify my overall argument for you:
1. I want a variety of classes, weapons, powers; I want them all to be fun to use, I want them to be able to choose them based on playstyle preference as opposed to total power.
2. I want the game to possess a difficulty mode that challenges me without being tedious.
3. To accomplish both of the above, the game's challenge and tools available to the player needs to be designed to be in a relationship where neither overpowers the other. You don't want players so weak that the game becomes tedious to play, you don't want options so strong that the game is mindless to play. Accordingly, the variety of classes, weapons, powers, etc. need to be of similiar total power level to certain options from avoid sliding into either extreme and becoming excluded from the game by the vice of being not fun to use even when the player loves the idea.

This is what balance means in a single player game.

Modifié par konfeta, 07 juillet 2011 - 07:28 .

[Aimi]

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I don't use GPS that often, except on the YMIRs and certain sub-bosses.  If they have shields I usually use a sniper rifle, and armored/normal enemy types usually get head shots with the Phalanx (at least the last play through I'm going through).  It really is just about play styles.  Some people enjoy overpowered weapons and breeze through, while others want a challenge.  My point though, which I should have clarified, as these were marketed as over powered weapons.  The Phalanx has a slow rate of fire, the GPS has to charge, and the Mattock has a smaller clip to help balance.  Maybe more work could have been done on the Mattock, but its not like these were included in the base-game from the start.

The argument that these things are DLC is irrelevant to whether they should be balanced or not because they are in the Mass Effect 3 base game.  We know the Mattock is going to make an appearance because it's been in literally every segment of gameplay footage we've seen.  Regardless of whether you think that the Firepower Pack weapons should have been consistent with game balance - and I think they should have, but that's neither here nor there - the fact of the matter is that as non-DLC weapons they will definitely need to be consistent with game balance in the third game.

[Xeranx]

konfeta wrote...

Actually it's a terrible argument to want to reduce one weapon's
effectiveness if you're advocating that the other weapons should be
improved.  Why?  Because it's entirely negative.  You're not asking for
balance when you ask for something to be reduced in power if everything
else can't do the job of what you're complaining about.  The people
asking for nerfs never realize this.  Because one thing works well you
can't be happy with it.  You want that thing that's "overpowered" to
share the same misery as everything else that is underpowered in
comparison.  What kind of sense does that make?

Um. It makes perfect sense when you stop and consider that there exists a spectrum of weapon power that can be summarized as: "Too weak <--> Normal <---> Too Good" and that you want all weapons to fall under the "Normal" tab - feel good/fun to use, are useful, don't make the game too easy, don't overshadow other aspects of combat.

You know.... Balanced. Not pea-shooter. Not god-slayer. Balanced.

What exactly is your classification of normal?  Sameness across the board?  Are all guns supposed to be exactly the same?  Why? Are all guns made equal?  Is a magnum the same as a beretta?  Again, you're not talking about balance with regards to what you're saying.  Balance doesn't mean a pistol can't be more powerful than another pistol.  It means that more powerful pistol has a drawback that the other one doesn't.  But as is always the case with nerf calls the topic never focuses on how other weapons are balanced but by how much damage one does above another.  This is why I said it's a negative.  Even in the OP there's no mention as to what makes the other weapons balanced to give any idea of where they're coming from.  Everyone is free to assume that the op is only talking about damage because everyone knows that the mattock is a damage dealer.

As to the adept,
what game are you playing?  The ONLY time an adept has any ease in
combat is after they whittle down defenses of enemies before using
biotics.  My first run was with my soldier.  Even at the lowest level of
adrenaline rush I was reducing things faster than my adept could.  It's
entirely funny that you would mention the adept trivializes combat
considering they have it harder than soldier, vanguard, infiltrator, and
sentinel.  Four above it.  I don't know about engineer because I don't
play as an engineer.  You strike me as the type that hates casting
classes just because you hate the idea of casting classes.  How true
that is I don't know and ultimately I don't care.  You've ruined your
argument by mentioning anything about the trivialization of combat with
adepts.

Um. What does the current state of class balance have anything to do with a hypothetical example of where Adepts are explicitely made godmode to demonstrate a point? What does my preference for class type (incidently, I always play caster archetypes first) has ANYTHING TO DO with the argument I was making?

Let me clarify my overall argument for you:
1. I want a variety of classes, weapons, powers; I want them all to be fun to use, I want them to be able to choose them based on playstyle preference as opposed to total power.
2. I want the game to possess a difficulty mode that challenges me without being tedious.
3. To accomplish both of the above, the game's challenge and tools available to the player needs to be designed to be in a relationship where neither overpowers the other. You don't want players so weak that the game becomes tedious to play, you don't want options so strong that the game is mindless to play. Accordingly, the variety of classes, weapons, powers, etc. need to be of similiar total power level to certain options from avoid sliding into either extreme and becoming excluded from the game by the vice of being not fun to use even when the player loves the idea.

This is what balance means in a single player game.

And I have no problem with that, but then I didn't read your statement as a hypothetical as it seemed more like a declaration on your part.  Then again, you knew that after you read my response.

[ArkkAngel007]

daqs wrote...

ArkkAngel007 wrote...

I don't use GPS that often, except on the YMIRs and certain sub-bosses.  If they have shields I usually use a sniper rifle, and armored/normal enemy types usually get head shots with the Phalanx (at least the last play through I'm going through).  It really is just about play styles.  Some people enjoy overpowered weapons and breeze through, while others want a challenge.  My point though, which I should have clarified, as these were marketed as over powered weapons.  The Phalanx has a slow rate of fire, the GPS has to charge, and the Mattock has a smaller clip to help balance.  Maybe more work could have been done on the Mattock, but its not like these were included in the base-game from the start.

The argument that these things are DLC is irrelevant to whether they should be balanced or not because they are in the Mass Effect 3 base game.  We know the Mattock is going to make an appearance because it's been in literally every segment of gameplay footage we've seen.  Regardless of whether you think that the Firepower Pack weapons should have been consistent with game balance - and I think they should have, but that's neither here nor there - the fact of the matter is that as non-DLC weapons they will definitely need to be consistent with game balance in the third game.

In which it should most likely be balanced in Mass Effect 3.  My point was that it was overpowered in Mass Effect 2 because it was designed to be (at the best of my knowledge).  And with the difficulty most likely casual/normal in the gameplay demos for ME3, it will be hard to judge what the Mattock will be like on harder difficulties, which is the crux of the issue I gather.  

I do agree with you though on the balancing issue for ME3 and I hope I didn't make it seem otherwise.  My point was mostly to show the difference in performance design and intention of the weapon in ME2 and ME3.

[sH0tgUn jUliA]

What really messes me up in ME is that I play CoD Black Ops Hardcore modes exclusively. I never did the campaign. One 3 round burst from a M16 = dead (unless "last stand" equipped or I miss entirely, lol). Then I get used to short controlled 3 round bursts on the AK74u. Then I go to the Kassa Locust and try a 3 round burst and expect dead. Whoops! And the ME ARs and SMGs should have Red Dot sights or ACOG scopes available that you can change on board the Normandy before a mission.

And let's not forget that in CoD the FN FAL is a one shot kill and it's a semi-auto assault rifle, and has low kick. I don't see this as any different than the Mattock. It's almost as good as a sniper rifle for damage and you can do rapid fire with it like the Viper. Far better than the M14. Then there's the Commando which is essentially a fully automatic M16.

Some weapons are going to be better than others. Some people do better with semi-autos and some better with full auto. This is a single player game afterall. The point is to have fun. It isn't guild or clan competition.

So they can either balance (aka nerf) these supposed overpowered weapons, then sell us another DLC weapons pack because there will be a demand for it, or they can leave them alone. I'll opt for leaving them alone. If you think they're overpowered don't use them.

Modifié par sH0tgUn jUliA, 07 juillet 2011 - 08:51 .