65 réponses à ce sujet

[Cloaking_Thane]

Butthead11 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Butthead11 wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

Balance applies to PVE just as much as PVP.

It is balanced, Unique Gold Rare should be better even if marginally, end of story.

If you want to say they should have less ammo depots, I think that is a valid discussion, but this hurts grenade users alot.

#not easy to balance a game

Wat.
I didn't say anything about unique gold rares. or ammo depots.
I just said PVE balance discussion is relevant and just because it's PVE dosen't mean it's balanced by default. 

Then bring up specifics.....I'm discussing the entire thread as a whole. What is imbalanced.

based on the math I've seen the cooldown bonus on adds tenths of seconds.

Widow II on my specced Female infiltator is -4% cooldown...........thats pretty hefy and the only weapon I carry 

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 24 février 2012 - 06:37 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

No offense but I get equally tired hearing people right it off as "balanced" every time someone else notes an issue. When the vast majority use either a pistol or the basic assault rifle, then no, everything is not "pretty balanced." The Vanguard is a class designed for close quarter combat by way of the shotgun and yet the current system makes using a shotgun less efficient than the aforementioned weapons. Pistols easily reign supreme with the exception of an Infiltrator, who can make use of snipers.

You want a balanced weaponry system, try Call of Duty. It has a plethora of guns and yet the primary factor in their use is determined by RoF, damage, recoil, ease of use, ammo and preference. In Mass Effect, you gimp yourself because powers are far more worthwhile and can be spammed endlessly while a Phalanx does more damage than the Mattock, an semi-automatic assault rifle. That alone is ridiculous.

[Jenetic]

EsterCloat wrote...

A possible solution would be to have pistol strength nerfed some. The reason everyone rolls with just a pistol is because they don't really have to give up shooting strength by going around with a Phalanx or Carnifex because they hit harder per shot than most other guns save for the sniper rifle, which has the "rapid fire" Viper shooting slower than a pistol, and the shotgun, which needs to be shot at close range or you lose damage potential, without all the weight. You put a scope on a Phalanx or Carnifex and you have a sniper rifle that can hit faster than the Viper and, depending on the level of the gun, cost you no cooldown at all.

If you made pistols weaker, people would be forced to choose between crazy fast cooldowns or having a gun that isn't a peashooter.

I don't know about nerfing the strenght, but the accuracy is a little unbelievable. If the accuracy of the pistols was "realistic" then there would be better balance in terms of when to use the pistols and when to use the sniper.  We would have a reason to carry both.  The fact that we can, essentially, use pistols as mini snipers is why a lot of people run pistol infiltrator builds. (I understand it's not a PvP competitive game, I'm just making an observation).

I carry my Widow on my salarian ifiltrator and in the time it takes to reload I'm ready to cloak again. It works great for me and I get in to a rhythm that takes out tons of bad guys. Cloak, energy drain, fire, cover, repeat.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

I think the benefit of carrying just one weapon in order to maximize on powers is absolutely huge. There are only a few classes now that I still use 2 weapons for - mostly b/c my weapon unlocks have been really crappy.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

No offense but I get equally tired hearing people right it off as "balanced" every time someone else notes an issue. When the vast majority use either a pistol or the basic assault rifle, then no, everything is not "pretty balanced." The Vanguard is a class designed for close quarter combat by way of the shotgun and yet the current system makes using a shotgun less efficient than the aforementioned weapons. Pistols easily reign supreme with the exception of an Infiltrator, who can make use of snipers.

You want a balanced weaponry system, try Call of Duty. It has a plethora of guns and yet the primary factor in their use is determined by RoF, damage, recoil, ease of use, ammo and preference. In Mass Effect, you gimp yourself because powers are far more worthwhile and can be spammed endlessly while a Phalanx does more damage than the Mattock, an semi-automatic assault rifle. That alone is ridiculous.

Not true, i see many people doing well on gold with Mattocks, Avengers etc. Personal preference and at the point of a X weapon the cooldown is negligable.

Phylnx also doesnt have a kickback animation unless I'm mistaken the others don't.

Vanguard was always going to be tricky, the Claymore solves some of your issues.

If the carnifex maximizes the fun and playstyle for you why does that bother you? Should shotguns weigh less?

please rebalance the game. how would you do it? Do we nerf the widow as well?

Do we nerf Phantoms? Turrets?

Where does nerfing or "rebalancing" stop?

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 24 février 2012 - 06:50 .

[EsterCloat]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

No offense but I get equally tired hearing people right it off as "balanced" every time someone else notes an issue. When the vast majority use either a pistol or the basic assault rifle, then no, everything is not "pretty balanced." The Vanguard is a class designed for close quarter combat by way of the shotgun and yet the current system makes using a shotgun less efficient than the aforementioned weapons. Pistols easily reign supreme with the exception of an Infiltrator, who can make use of snipers.

You want a balanced weaponry system, try Call of Duty. It has a plethora of guns and yet the primary factor in their use is determined by RoF, damage, recoil, ease of use, ammo and preference. In Mass Effect, you gimp yourself because powers are far more worthwhile and can be spammed endlessly while a Phalanx does more damage than the Mattock, an semi-automatic assault rifle. That alone is ridiculous.

I agree. I used to carry a Phalanx and Avenger on my Vanguard because even just carrying one shotgun cost me more cooldown than both those guns combined. Now I have a Scimitar on her just because I'm kind of sick of the minmaxing. It adds more cooldown but that's fine. I can deal with that.

And yeah, Phalanx being stronger than a Mattock is rather kooky, yes.

Dagasi wrote...

I don't know about nerfing the strenght, but the accuracy is a little unbelievable. If the accuracy of the pistols was "realistic" then there would be better balance in terms of when to use the pistols and when to use the sniper.  We would have a reason to carry both.  The fact that we can, essentially, use pistols as mini snipers is why a lot of people run pistol infiltrator builds. (I understand it's not a PvP competitive game, I'm just making an observation).

I carry my Widow on my salarian ifiltrator and in the time it takes to reload I'm ready to cloak again. It works great for me and I get in to a rhythm that takes out tons of bad guys. Cloak, energy drain, fire, cover, repeat.

That would also work as well. Having a scope on a pistol just seems crazy.

Modifié par EsterCloat, 24 février 2012 - 06:49 .

[Kronner]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

No offense but I get equally tired hearing people right it off as "balanced" every time someone else notes an issue. When the vast majority use either a pistol or the basic assault rifle, then no, everything is not "pretty balanced." The Vanguard is a class designed for close quarter combat by way of the shotgun and yet the current system makes using a shotgun less efficient than the aforementioned weapons. Pistols easily reign supreme with the exception of an Infiltrator, who can make use of snipers.

You want a balanced weaponry system, try Call of Duty. It has a plethora of guns and yet the primary factor in their use is determined by RoF, damage, recoil, ease of use, ammo and preference. In Mass Effect, you gimp yourself because powers are far more worthwhile and can be spammed endlessly while a Phalanx does more damage than the Mattock, an semi-automatic assault rifle. That alone is ridiculous.

This is exactly spot on. It is quite sad, really.

[Poison_Berrie]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Not true, i see many people doing well on gold with Mattocks, Avengers etc. Personal preference and at the point of a X weapon the cooldown is negligable.

Phylnx also doesnt have a kickback animation unless I'm mistaken the others do

Well we aren't saying that using these weapons is impossible. 
Think of it this way. The system is designed to let you decide how many and what kind of weapons you carry based on advantages and disadvantages. 
The idea is that as someone who wants to use a lot of powers you choose a lesser lighter weapon and take their disadvantage for granted. Pistols are light, but carry little disadvantage over weapons they are supposed to replace. There is little to no disadvantage and so the entire system becomes moot. 

[Nashiktal]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

Not that I think anything is too overpowered right now, but balance is still important in PVE.  If one class is overpowered and outshines the rest, that class and is power can overtake the game. Making other classes obsolete or less fun to play. (by either under performing, or the other class overperfoming and thus less fun for everyone else.)

Its the same the other way around if a class is too underpowered.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Not true, i see many people doing well on gold with Mattocks, Avengers etc. Personal preference and at the point of a X weapon the cooldown is negligable.

Phylnx also doesnt have a kickback animation unless I'm mistaken the others do

Well we aren't saying that using these weapons is impossible. 
Think of it this way. The system is designed to let you decide how many and what kind of weapons you carry based on advantages and disadvantages. 
The idea is that as someone who wants to use a lot of powers you choose a lesser lighter weapon and take their disadvantage for granted. Pistols are light, but carry little disadvantage over weapons they are supposed to replace. There is little to no disadvantage and so the entire system becomes moot. 

I understand what you mean,

Solutions?:

Make less powerful, weigh more, less ammo crates?

Maybe the AR's will be magically great against an enemy type we havent seen and pistols will be less effective. IDK.

People are effective on gold with every weapon set (myself included) so I fail to see this as a huge issue. Could be just me and thats ok I don't mind discussion.

[FiGhTiNCoWBoY]

It all comes down to playstyle though, if you want to be a soldier and use a widow and claymore at the same time your speed is going to be bad, but that's why there's options in the Assault tree. You can pump your damage and not have to rely on skills or reduce the weight of them to make your skills come up sooner. It just depends how you'd rather play your class.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Nashiktal wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

Not that I think anything is too overpowered right now, but balance is still important in PVE.  If one class is overpowered and outshines the rest, that class and is power can overtake the game. Making other classes obsolete or less fun to play. (by either under performing, or the other class overperfoming and thus less fun for everyone else.)

Its the same the other way around if a class is too underpowered.

I've clarified several things since then, my contention is that pistols are not OP currently. To me the game is pretty well balanced I want to know specifically what people want to change

[Thoragoros]

It could also be that the penalties for carrying heavy weapons are simply too great, or that weight for weapons is simply exagerated in both directions.

[FiGhTiNCoWBoY]

I think a major issue for now at least is most people aren't running around with the X version of these weapons. A Widow X or Claymore X will obviously be much easier on weight than a I version of it.

[flamingCanine]

If teched properly, one can have both Pistols and SMGs and still hit 200% CD decrease. With low-level pistols/SMGs too.

Modifié par flamingCanine, 24 février 2012 - 07:09 .

[a9fc]

I've a soldier that's basically an automatic homing grenade launcher lol

[Bourne Endeavor]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

It's all pretty balanced as it is, I get tired of "nerf" discussions in a PVE

No offense but I get equally tired hearing people right it off as "balanced" every time someone else notes an issue. When the vast majority use either a pistol or the basic assault rifle, then no, everything is not "pretty balanced." The Vanguard is a class designed for close quarter combat by way of the shotgun and yet the current system makes using a shotgun less efficient than the aforementioned weapons. Pistols easily reign supreme with the exception of an Infiltrator, who can make use of snipers.

You want a balanced weaponry system, try Call of Duty. It has a plethora of guns and yet the primary factor in their use is determined by RoF, damage, recoil, ease of use, ammo and preference. In Mass Effect, you gimp yourself because powers are far more worthwhile and can be spammed endlessly while a Phalanx does more damage than the Mattock, an semi-automatic assault rifle. That alone is ridiculous.

Not true, i see many people doing well on gold with Mattocks, Avengers etc. Personal preference and at the point of a X weapon the cooldown is negligable.

Phylnx also doesnt have a kickback animation unless I'm mistaken the others don't.

Vanguard was always going to be tricky, the Claymore solves some of your issues.

If the carnifex maximizes the fun and playstyle for you why does that bother you? Should shotguns weigh less?

please rebalance the game. how would you do it? Do we nerf the widow as well?

Do we nerf Phantoms? Turrets?

Where does nerfing or "rebalancing" stop?

Yes, because they are being stubborn. I love the Mattock but statistically, it is inferior to the Phalanx and arguably even to the Avenger. Never mind the Carifex, which just dominates everything. Avenger is the "basic assault rifle" I mentioned by the way. This gun was considered so atrocious in ME2, people couldn't wait to dump it. Now, it's one of the best guns in the game. You do not see this as an issue?

The Claymore is absolutely horrendous, to the point it may be the worst gun in the game. Enormously slow RoF, a single shot, massive hindrance on cooldowns. Sure, it can deal beastly damage but in the time it takes you to kill three enemies. I will have cleared triple with a Phalanx or just Charge/Nova spamming.

You are making a mountain of a mole hill. Balance is partly what we had in ME2, although it to could use revisions. For instance, here is a quick balance attempt...

Katana = Jack of all trades, avenge shotgun that neither excels or is inferior at anything. Very easy to use.

Scimitar = Superior RoF and decent damage but a smaller magazine and has a inverted shot recoil similar to the SMG, making it somewhat annoying to use.

Eviscerator = Decent RoF, easy to use and has a high magazine but less overall damage

Claymore = Incredible damage, horrid RoF, one shot per reload but easy to use.

The above may not be perfect but considering I made it up in a few minutes, it shall suffice. The point is now you have four shotguns all competent in their own right but each have an edge some players prefer to others. If I want pure damage, I have the Claymore. If I want an all around gun, then I'll run the Katana. What we have now is, all the shotguns suck because a Phalanx lets you spam Charge/Nova and does fairly high damage. There is no reason to use any of them.

Modifié par Bourne Endeavor, 24 février 2012 - 07:15 .

[FiGhTiNCoWBoY]

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Katana = Jack of all trades, avenge shotgun that neither excels or is inferior at anything. Very easy to use.

Scimitar = Superior RoF and decent damage but a smaller magazine and has a inverted shot recoil similar to the SMG, making it somewhat annoying to use.

Eviscerator = Decent RoF, easy to use and has a high magazine but less overall damage

Claymore = Incredible damage, horrid RoF, one shot per reload but easy to use.

The above may not be perfect but considering I made it up in a few minutes, it shall suffice. The point is now you have four shotguns all competent in their own right but each have an edge some players prefer to others. If I want pure damage, I have the Claymore. If I want an all around gun, then I'll run the Katana. What we have now is, all the shotguns suck because a Phalanx lets you spam Charge/Nova and does fairly high damage. There is no reason to use any of them.

If you're running a charge/nova vanguard that's built properly, you won't need a shotgun to begin wtih.  In fact I find I'd rather have a pistol on mine for when there's something far off and it's not an opportune time to charge in.

Also try out an Inflitrator + Claymore.  Add in that damage bonus from stealth and you'll see real quickly that it is most definitely not the worse gun in the game.

Modifié par FiGhTiNCoWBoY, 24 février 2012 - 07:12 .

[Cloaking_Thane]

@BE In the current weight system that will always be the case, I personally think that is SG's recieved a for example 20-40% close damage bonus it wouldn't be an issue and vanguards everywhere would cheer.

In this current weight system pistols will always be lighter than everything else and will always let you maximize your CD

You havent even seen half the SG's or weapons in the game, let alone the enemies, I'm certain one will be the bread and butter you want.

Modifié par Cloaking_Thane, 24 février 2012 - 07:17 .

[Jiufengbao]

Nerfs aren't always the way to solve things. While it definitely seems counter-intuitive, maybe if you carried two weapons you could get a buff on damage to both of them? This would make it worthwhile carrying two weapons, even if one of them's a pistol. You could call it "weapons master" or something. And if you scaled the damage to the type of weapon, it would make some loadouts, like AR/shotgun, more viable. Not that I care about ARs. Shotguns/Pistols all the way!

[Kronner]

FiGhTiNCoWBoY wrote...

I think a major issue for now at least is most people aren't running around with the X version of these weapons. A Widow X or Claymore X will obviously be much easier on weight than a I version of it.

So will every other weapon.
Pistols are incredibly OP considering their damage, RoF and weight. It's not even funny.

[Cloaking_Thane]

Kronner wrote...

FiGhTiNCoWBoY wrote...

I think a major issue for now at least is most people aren't running around with the X version of these weapons. A Widow X or Claymore X will obviously be much easier on weight than a I version of it.

So will every other weapon.
Pistols are incredibly OP considering their damage, RoF and weight. It's not even funny.

The reverse is also true.

If you're not going to do any damage at all, there is very little benefit of .3 second cooldown

[Kronner]

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

The reverse is also true.

If you're not going to do any damage at all, there is very little benefit of .3 second cooldown

What do you mean? Carnifex + headshot = gold enemy dead
You have 6 shots in a clip.

Claymore? One shot. 10 times as heavy, so your cooldowns are significantly longer.

Modifié par Kronner, 24 février 2012 - 07:32 .

[Bourne Endeavor]

FiGhTiNCoWBoY wrote...

Bourne Endeavor wrote...

Katana = Jack of all trades, avenge shotgun that neither excels or is inferior at anything. Very easy to use.

Scimitar = Superior RoF and decent damage but a smaller magazine and has a inverted shot recoil similar to the SMG, making it somewhat annoying to use.

Eviscerator = Decent RoF, easy to use and has a high magazine but less overall damage

Claymore = Incredible damage, horrid RoF, one shot per reload but easy to use.

The above may not be perfect but considering I made it up in a few minutes, it shall suffice. The point is now you have four shotguns all competent in their own right but each have an edge some players prefer to others. If I want pure damage, I have the Claymore. If I want an all around gun, then I'll run the Katana. What we have now is, all the shotguns suck because a Phalanx lets you spam Charge/Nova and does fairly high damage. There is no reason to use any of them.

If you're running a charge/nova vanguard that's built properly, you won't need a shotgun to begin wtih.  In fact I find I'd rather have a pistol on mine for when there's something far off and it's not an opportune time to charge in.

Also try out an Inflitrator + Claymore.  Add in that damage bonus from stealth and you'll see real quickly that it is most definitely not the worse gun in the game.

True enough, although if we abandoned the weight entirely, at least you have the option devoid of completely gimping yourself. Right now Charge+Nova+Avenger/Phalanx is hands down the best choice.

I have heard the Claymore can be decent with an Infiltrator. While that may withhold it from being considered the worst gun in the game, it's still not a recommended choice when the Widow does everything the Claymore but better. Besides, if I had to choose, SMG get "worst gun" title. Maybe it is just me but wow do I hate those things.

Cloaking_Thane wrote...

Kronner wrote...

FiGhTiNCoWBoY wrote...

I think a major issue for now at least is most people aren't running around with the X version of these weapons. A Widow X or Claymore X will obviously be much easier on weight than a I version of it.

So will every other weapon.
Pistols are incredibly OP considering their damage, RoF and weight. It's not even funny.

The reverse is also true.

If you're not going to do any damage at all, there is very little benefit of .3 second cooldown

Here is a little scenario. Say you fire off the Claymore and it manages to kill two enemies; lucky shot. In the amount of time it takes you to accomplish this and reload, my Engineer will have activated his drone to stun three enemies, killed them, used Overload to stun three more and again killed them.

You have two and will take damage as enemies rush you. Whereas, I have locked down six enemies and killed them all. The latter is far more beneficial to the team, especially on Gold. The exact same scenario can be applied to a Vanguard using Charge+Nova+Avenger.

This is why the system is flawed.