228 réponses à ce sujet

[JaimasOfRaxis]

Even with my tendency to swallow them like M&Ms (seriously, running a soldier means munching them for grenades often on higher difficulties) I have close to 2 hundred clip packs.

[Rifneno]

RazRei wrote...

But that’s how BioWare is justifying it, or that’s how BioWare is looking at it from IMO 

IMO I think BW is looking at it like:

- Pistol X can carry a max of 5 rounds in the chamber
- Rifle R can carry 30 rounds in the chamber.

+ Pistol X can take down Target G with 3 Rounds
+ Rifle R can take down Target G with 6 Rounds

But that NEVER happens percentage wise in this game.  Even if the Pistol has a lower firerate it just blows my mind that in the future the AR would be a weaker weapon overall to use on the battlefield than a standard issue sidearm like the Pistol.

Exactly.  Low damage, high fire weapons are getting dicked by game mechanics.  It's really just that simple.  Just because some people do well with them doesn't mean they aren't underpowered.  It means they're good players, nothing more.  It's not that ARs are broken to the point of not being viable.  They aren't.  It's that they aren't as good as SRs, pistols, or just playing a pure caster and saying screw guns.  They require you to be exposed longer to enemy fire, they aren't AoE (in comparison to casters), and they're harder to aim.

[TexasToast712]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

TexasToast, you've said all thread that the sole purpose of ARs is to strip shields. 

I never said that. I said they are GOOD at it. Nice try.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

I never said that. I said they are GOOD at it. Nice try.

...Whilst arguing that they're just as viable as high single-shot weapons all thread. The implication was that this was what they were basically justified as being sub-par weapons over.

The point still stands.

[TexasToast712]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

I never said that. I said they are GOOD at it. Nice try.

...Whilst arguing that they're just as viable as high single-shot weapons all thread. The implication was that this was what they were basically justified as being sub-par weapons over.

The point still stands.

Your point doesn't stand. They are just as viable as single shots.

[Tangster]

I think...I'll just use whatever I want. The MP isn't difficult enough to make any weapon class other than SMG's useless.

[TexasToast712]

Tangster wrote...

I think...I'll just use whatever I want. The MP isn't difficult enough to make any weapon class other than SMG's useless.

I like this Quarian. It understands.

[Bolo Xia]

maybe that is why we have powers too...? this is a powers plus guns game. also it inspires TEAM WORK, i am sorry some of you players don't understand this.

RAMBO is not the key play style here. some of you you guys still haven't realized this yet obviously.
another point, yeah SP you are more powerful but that is cause we have 3 characters at the same time YOU CAN CONTROL. we can make them focus fire or use powers on specific targets for maximum benefit.

anyway not going to waste any more of my time since this is a page 8 post and 99% of the players wont read it. that or start flaming me for being stupid/childish because im actually making valid points/counter arguments.

Modifié par Bolo Xia, 23 mars 2012 - 12:29 .

[ElementL09]

Bolo Xia wrote...

maybe that is why we have powers too...? this is a powers plus guns game. also it inspires TEAM WORK, i am sorry some of you players don't understand this.

RAMBO is not the key play style here. some of you you guys still haven't realized this yet obviously.
another point, yeah SP you are more powerful but that is cause we have 3 characters at the same time YOU CAN CONTROL. we can make them focus fire or use powers on specific targets for maximum benefit.

anyway not going to waste any more of my time since this is a page 8 post and 99% of the players wont read it. that or start flaming me for being stupid/childish because im actually making valid points/counter arguments.

Besides the Avenger and Vindactor, the Assualt Rifles are pretty heavy.  Also going RAMBO isn't bad on bronze and silver, on bronze its easy and on silver you can do it to avoid getting flanked.

Assualt rifles can be useful depending on the class using them.  If I have an Asari Adept, I'd rather take an Avenger X then a Pistol because of its weight and ability to assist others in taking down enemies or Team Work.  Although, I still think that there is still some balancing damage wise that still needs work.

Additionally, I personally find SMG's to be useless.  Why have an SMG when I got an Avenger X?

[Jonto0]

The biggest issue for AR is how they scale to the rest of the weapons (same with smg). There's a few viable guns, but most off them isn't worth it. Hope they buff their dmg to double of current state.

[Mazandus]

Sevrun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

The carnifex would beat the rev against the banshee due to the better accuracy and quicker reload. Atlas i'm not sure.
But the if you want to down shields on the big guys thats what snipers are for. Let's see what would tear through shields barriers faster a mantis or a Rev....
And although Armor isn't completley immune to ARs in ME3 it's much more resistant to the point where it might as well be. And you can only do headshot damage against certain enemies unlike in ME2 where everything had a head. And even with headshots the HPs/Snipers will still outpreform the ARs. 

I have to disagree with the first part, as I've seen guys with the Carnifex start spraying from the hip and squealing like little girls when she shows up.  My accuracy there is pretty good.

In relation to the second, the Vindicator can counter the advantage you'd expect from the basic headshots of HPs/Snipers until you start to account for those players likely taking the buff to headshot damage.

In this area you're starting to get into situations where playstyle skews the numbers... validating my point that playstyle matters.

An Avenger 3 on BRONZE has to reload when dealing with more than one Assault trooper. The automatic weapons in this MP are terrible. Once you have unlocked a good pistol or sniper there is no point to them. Anything the automatics do ("shred" shields) can be accomplished with less effort, and less danger with the sheer damage of a sniper/hvy pistol and power.

It is:

1) bad design to have 2 entire families of useless weapons. I am not talking about 2 useless weapons, but 2 FAMILIES of useless weapons.

2) Immersion breaking to see all the bad guys in the single player and mp sporting automatics, all the militaries of the galaxy sporting automatics, and then picking one up and watching your pea shooter barely take any health off a husk.

3) There is no depth. Once you have a strong sniper or pistol you just use that. Anything you think you are accomplishing with an automatic can be done more effeciently and less dangerously with a sniper/pistol.

4) it renders the soldier class obsolete and nigh useless on gold. If the soldier class had an ammo power in their tree, then I could see the auto's having at least a role in their hands. However, given the way everything else is tuned, it would probably make the soldier incredibly powerful. All of this just highlights the lack of thought, polish and care that went into designing this MP. 


More than half the guns are useless piles of ****. There are only 2 truly viable builds, sniper, and caster. I for one would like more variety.

[Arppis]

They do feel bit uneffective...

[Mazandus]

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

Power-to-size ratio is just the tip of the iceberg; over half the rifles and almost all of the SMG in Mass Effect 3's multiplayer are 100% useless due to a combination of recoil, poor individual round damage, and poor effectiveness against most conventional targets.

The Saber/Paladin/Carnifex drum's been beaten quite a bit, but it bears repeating; there's nothing that the Sabre does that the Carnifex or Paladin, given a scope, doesn't do better for a fraction of the weight except sustainability - which, given our old friend the Clip Pack, isn't even that huge a downside, even if you're a complete yahoo who doesn't attempt resupplies during combat.

Hell, even the Viper has better conventional performance than the Saber, and I say that as a man who seriously likes him some Soldier class. The Saber just is not worth it, which is a damned shame for a weapon that's N7 rank.

With the exception of the Mattock, Revenant, and pre-nerf Falcon, the bulk of the rifles just aren't effective. Hell, the Revenant is a really iffy gun in and of itself; it kicks far too hard and its DPS far too fluctuating on any class that isn't a Turian - which is completely and utterly ridiculous. One might think that a professionally-trained Alliance soldier or a Krogan could handle that recoil without their aim attempting to emulate Parkinson's Disease, but you would be wrong.

The SMGs are even worse offenders than the rifles, being somehow LESS accurate when aimed.

I don't know who came up with this game's weapon damage and accuracy algorithms, but they're a mess. I've taken my Geth Pulse Rifle into matches and come out alive, but if it's taking me a clip or so of ammo to drop a single Silver Geth Trooper when I'm mostly scoring headshots, then I think it's safe to say that something is wrong.

To put it differently, I propose some simple logic puzzles:


1. Why would you take a weapon like the Tempest, Hurricane, Locust, or Shuriken, for example, when I can get better performance out of a decent-quality Heavy Pistol or a Shotgun, and they have a longer effective range as part of the bargain?  The only thing the Tempest has over them is weight via Ultralight Materials - which is not enough to make it a favorable choice over a pistol or shotgun.

2. Why would you take a heavy weapon like the Saber or Revenant - a heavy weapon that fires single long-range slugs, and a heavy weapon with a high fire rate that is functionally only viable on one class - over weapons which accomplish much the same purpose for less weight? The Saber is simply not as efficient, effective, or damaging as the Viper Sniper Rifle, let alone a pimped-out Carnifex. The Revenant lays down a lot of firepower, but can really only be used effectively by one class; and even then, its spray is so wild that players may as well go for more efficient, accurate weapons with more reliable killing potential (I.E. the Mattock).

3. Why would anyone ever use a weapon like the Incisor, when everything it does is handled better by guns a fraction of its weight? The Raptor offers better damage and accuracy; the Viper offers better damage per-shot and better range; a quality heavy pistol with scope and barrel extension can flat-out out-perform it in every single catagory.

Unless these guns are made more viable, they simply won't be used, and the game will continue to revolve around Sniper Weapons, Pistols, and a few errant shotguns.

As an interesting aside, anyone with an N7 Eagle can get a glimpse of what a not-complete-fail automatic weapon is like. Seriously, that little bastard puts more effective DPS downrange than half of the Assault Rifle stable.

Being on PS3 I was shafted in regards to the N7 Pinata, but having the Eagle in SP I see no reason to doubt you. If anything that should be baseline what an Avenger/Phaeston/SMG gives you.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

My condolences, Mazandus.

The N7 Eagle was what I got from the Commendation Pack and is one of two promo guns I got (the other being the Collector Rifle). The Collector rifle has the same problem every other automatic weapon has in the game (I.E. it sucks and its power/size ratio is a joke), but the Eagle is amazing. Full-auto fire rate, 16-round clip, and it can bring down enemies reliably on silver with minimal trouble. On Gold, I was hole-punching Reapers with my Krogan Soldier with it.

If the other rifles had the sort of effectiveness the Eagle does, this game wouldn't have the ridiculous metagame shift towards single-shot damage it does now.


SUPER BONUS AWESOME SEGMENT: So, ammo packs. Did you know that ammo packs benefit high-firepower weapons too? This is because unlike ME2, where ammo abilities gave their buff differing depending on the weapon type, in ME3, ammo upgrades are flat multiplicative. Because of this, weapons with high single-shot damage, such as a sniper rifle or heavy pistol, recieve a greater benefit from the ammo power than a rapid-fire weapon does. This is especially noticable with Armor-Piercing ammo; the %-based bonus to health and armor damage is much more impressive when applied to a weapon with high single-round damage (such as the Mantis) compared to a weapon with rapid fire (such as the Avenger).

[MartialArtsSurfer]

http://social.biowar...2648/1#10321708 --official dev post by Eric Fagnan on how armor/weapons work & why low-damage per bullet weapons like SMGs & AR's suck

unlike ME2, weapons have no damage bonus vs. shields nor armor

instead, armor subtracts a flat amount FROM EACH bullet (ie, a mob has 20 pts of armor means 20 pts of damage is subtracted from each bullet, with a mininum of 1 pt of damage being done).

Thus, a Geth Pulse Rifle or SMG that does only 20-30 pts of damge will do only 1 to 10 points of damage per bullet on a mob with the typical 20 pts of armor 

--yet Snipers can do 100-1,000+ each bullet & Carnifex is 276-345, Phalanx is 97-114 each bullet so a 20 pt reduction is tiny for them.

Based real life science/physics, AR's should do at least twice the damage of pistols due to their longer barrel & higher caliber (9 mm pistol rounds) whereas higher caliber (7.62 mm or .45 caliber) should do more.

the most powerful round is the .50 caliber used in sniper rifles
next is the 7.62 mm AR
then 5.5 & 5.56 mm AR

strongest pistol rounds are .50 & .44 & .45 caliber used in Eagles & Magnums
most SMG & pistol rounds use only 9 mm though



His post:
"Weapon Penetration and Armor Piercing

The
penetration mechanic (going through walls) has no impact by itself on
the amount of damage a weapon does against armored enemies (the yellow
health bar). The Javelin, for example, has a penetration value of 100 = 1
meter so it can penetrate through a total of 1 meter of solid objects
but it doesn't do extra damage to the yellow armor health bar. The
Javelin will, however, penetrate through other solid objects like the
detachable armor plating on the Brutes, Husks, and Cannibals, and the
Guardian shield. Whenever a weapon hits a target after going through a
solid object, the amount of damage done is reduced by a flat amount.

The
weapon mods, equipment (MP), and Armor Piercing Ammo can all increase
the distance that weapons can penetrate through solid objects. So if you
add a penetration mod on the Javelin, the penetration distance gets
even larger, but that won't increase the damage done to enemies after
penetrating through objects.

The penetration mods and Armor
Piercing Ammo have another mechanic called 'piercing' which affects the
damage done to armored targets.

By default, enemies with the yellow
armor bar will chop off a set amount of damage done to them from
weapons. This makes low damage weapons less effective against armor and
high damage weapons very effective against them

. So even if a weapon has
a really fast fire rate but each bullet does a low amount of damage it
will get penalized for hitting armor since a big chunk of every bullet's
damage is ignored.

When equipping penetration mods and using Armor
Piercing Ammo, the weapon's "armor piercing" goes up, which means a lot
less damage is cut off. For example, equipping rank 1 Armor Piercing
Ammo will reduce the amount of damage that armor cuts off by 50%. By
default, weapons do not have any base armor "piercing."

Armor can never negate weapon damage completely. There is a minimum damage value that weapons will always do to armor."

Modifié par MartialArtsSurfer, 23 mars 2012 - 10:16 .

[InstaShark]

Protips:

1) Armor piercing, extended barrel, and ammunition mods help.

2) Aim for the weak points.

3) If you're going up against armor, use powers or switch to a sniper rifle/heavy pistol. Those two weapons are MEANT to be used against armor. Otherwise, if you don't use either, refer back to tip #1

It ticks me off to read how a gun "sucks" when guns alone aren't going to take down everything in 5 seconds. There's a reason why we have powers, mods, and (most importantly) teammates to have a successful run.

Modifié par InstaShark, 23 mars 2012 - 05:30 .

[Rifneno]

InstaShark wrote...

Protips:

1) Armor piercing, extended barrel, and ammunition mods help.

2) Aim for the weak points.

3) If you're going up against armor, use powers or switch to a sniper rifle/heavy pistol. Those two weapons are MEANT to be used against armor. Otherwise, if you don't use either, refer back to tip #1

It ticks me off to read how a gun "sucks" when guns alone aren't going to take down everything in 5 seconds. There's a reason why we have powers, mods, and (most importantly) teammates to have a successful run.

1)  Of course expendable mods help.  They help everyone.  That's a "protip"?  What's a rookietip, "click the mouse to fire"?

2)  Which on most actually dangerous enemies either don't exist or are a bug.  But regardless, yes, hitting things like headshots helps.  The problem is that it requires a lot more skill to do reliably and so it should be more rewarding.  Powers like biotics track a target like an IR missile.  Nevermind headshots, you don't even have to have the enemy's body in your crosshairs.  Why are guns, especially ARs, less rewarding while requiring more skill?

3)  LOL.  No they aren't.  The game mechanics are just retarded about armor.  Pistols are made to take down armor but not rifles?  Seriously?!  Hahaha...

[Mazandus]

InstaShark wrote...

Protips:

1) Armor piercing, extended barrel, and ammunition mods help.

2) Aim for the weak points.

3) If you're going up against armor, use powers or switch to a sniper rifle/heavy pistol. Those two weapons are MEANT to be used against armor. Otherwise, if you don't use either, refer back to tip #1

It ticks me off to read how a gun "sucks" when guns alone aren't going to take down everything in 5 seconds. There's a reason why we have powers, mods, and (most importantly) teammates to have a successful run.

The autos are hardly effective against pure health enemies like assault troopers on gold. Let alone armor. Some classes, ie soliders, have ZERO powers to combat armor. There is nothing in any of their trees to deal directly with armor or shields. They must rely on their weapons. When the weapons in a game are not balanced, as in this one, and there is not only a clear hiearchy within a family of guns but whole familes of guns are rednered useless, this becomes problematic.

Talking about teamwork is wonderful, but in practice a game designer should never ever create a character class that is helpless against certain foes if that same designer has created character classes that excel vs all foes. Its called "poor design."

You could make an argument that the soldier really only shines with an AR when they have the armor pen mod on the rifle, are using an ammo power, and are using an AR rail amp. This is problematic when RNG rules exactly which not only weapons, but weapon mods, ammo consumables and weapon rails are available to any player at any given time.

You could also make an argument that AR's and SMG's suck, so deal with it, and just equip snipers and pistols, but in that case, I know I'd not only rather have an adept or infiltrator instead of a sniper/pistol soldier, I'd rather be playing an adept/infiltrator than a sniper/pistol wielding soldier.


It might tick you off that some of us are complaing that whole families of weapons suck, but believe me it isn't because they don't take down everything on the screen in 5 seconds. Its because one will literally expend almost every round of an auto into an unshielded, unarmored enemy on gold and have to reload before even thinking about engaging another foe. It is about time to kill, effort vs reward, and risk mitigation. A soldier is simply too high a risk who offers very little for the team. Since the game is about TEAMWORK it is especially important that every class and weapon family bring something to the table. In this game, that is certainly not the case.

The full auto AR's and SMG's ****ing suck. Period.

Modifié par Mazandus, 23 mars 2012 - 06:29 .

[Mazandus]

Modifié par Mazandus, 23 mars 2012 - 06:28 .

[Mazandus]

MartialArtsSurfer wrote...

http://social.biowar...2648/1#10321708 --official dev post by Eric Fagnan on how armor/weapons work & why low-damage per bullet weapons like SMGs & AR's suck

unlike ME2, weapons have no damage bonus vs. shields nor armor

instead, armor subtracts a flat amount FROM EACH bullet (ie, a mob has 20 pts of armor means 20 pts of damage is subtracted from each bullet, with a mininum of 1 pt of damage being done).

Thus, a Geth Pulse Rifle or SMG that does only 20-30 pts of damge will do only 1 to 10 points of damage per bullet on a mob with the typical 20 pts of armor.

Based real life science/physics, AR's should do at least twice the damage of pistols due to their longer barrel & higher caliber (9 mm pistol rounds) whereas higher caliber (7.62 mm or .45 caliber) should do more.

the most powerful round is the .50 caliber used in sniper rifles
next is the 7.62 mm AR
then 5.5 & 5.56 mm AR

strongest pistol rounds are .50 & .44 & .45 caliber used in Eagles & Magnums
most SMG & pistol rounds use only 9 mm though



His post:
"Weapon Penetration and Armor Piercing

The
penetration mechanic (going through walls) has no impact by itself on
the amount of damage a weapon does against armored enemies (the yellow
health bar). The Javelin, for example, has a penetration value of 100 = 1
meter so it can penetrate through a total of 1 meter of solid objects
but it doesn't do extra damage to the yellow armor health bar. The
Javelin will, however, penetrate through other solid objects like the
detachable armor plating on the Brutes, Husks, and Cannibals, and the
Guardian shield. Whenever a weapon hits a target after going through a
solid object, the amount of damage done is reduced by a flat amount.

The
weapon mods, equipment (MP), and Armor Piercing Ammo can all increase
the distance that weapons can penetrate through solid objects. So if you
add a penetration mod on the Javelin, the penetration distance gets
even larger, but that won't increase the damage done to enemies after
penetrating through objects.

The penetration mods and Armor
Piercing Ammo have another mechanic called 'piercing' which affects the
damage done to armored targets.

By default, enemies with the yellow
armor bar will chop off a set amount of damage done to them from
weapons. This makes low damage weapons less effective against armor and
high damage weapons very effective against them

. So even if a weapon has
a really fast fire rate but each bullet does a low amount of damage it
will get penalized for hitting armor since a big chunk of every bullet's
damage is ignored.

When equipping penetration mods and using Armor
Piercing Ammo, the weapon's "armor piercing" goes up, which means a lot
less damage is cut off. For example, equipping rank 1 Armor Piercing
Ammo will reduce the amount of damage that armor cuts off by 50%. By
default, weapons do not have any base armor "piercing."

Armor can never negate weapon damage completely. There is a minimum damage value that weapons will always do to armor."

This kind of stuff always leaves me scratching my head. Because, on one hand, they went and tried to create a whole system to support their combat. On the other hand, the clung to some juvenile association of fast firing = weak per shot, ignoring all advances in firearm technology in the last oh, 100 years.(you know, things like barrel affecting accuracy, actual cartridge size determining size and power of the round. the impossibility of firing a rifle sized round in a pistol.) 


I know this isn't a modern day shooter. I know that heavy pistols are supposed to be "hand cannons." That just leaves me wondering why on earth Bioware decided to have full auto guns in the 1st place. Like I kept writing yesterday, if I was some Turian General there's no ****ing way in hell I'd hand out Avengers and Phaeston's and Tempests to my men.

But this is what happens when all the kids who played wizards and thieves in AD&D 2.0 try to make a combat system. They decide that hand guns should rule, as in star wars and star trek. Which is fine if your hand guns are shooting phaser rays and bolts of energy, but falls apart when you are firing solid projectiles. Belieive me, no military on earth would bother buying AR's or SMG's if they could create a hand gun that fired a comparable sized round as accurately and quickly as AR's do while actually being light enough to carry around. The ****ing 50 cal rifle that every game designer in the US is in love with weighs over 30lbs. Try running around with that thing raised to a shooting position and see how amazingly well you perform.

Bioware made some silly choices. Defend them, make fun of me, whatever, but they made some ****ing silly choices.

Modifié par Mazandus, 23 mars 2012 - 06:43 .

[Mazandus]

TexasToast712 wrote...

Tangster wrote...

I think...I'll just use whatever I want. The MP isn't difficult enough to make any weapon class other than SMG's useless.

I like this Quarian. It understands.

How is that acceptable? You are both in agreement that its ok for an entire weapon family (SMG's) to be useless. You are essentially saying not only is it ok for there to be junk "options" for players, but that players who spend credits or worse players who spend real $ should accept that there are junk weapons in the game because it makes the good weapons that much better? But who cares because the game isn't "difficult enough" anyway?

It is exactly that kind of reasoning that leads to what we have here.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

Mazandus, you are one bad-ass when it comes to deconstructing an argument. Were that this forum had a dozen more like you.

Bro-headbutt.

[Dot.Shadow]

Assault rifles are only slightly more useful than SMGs, save the Hurricane which is actually quite decent. Both could really need a damage buff.

[oppje]

Mazandus wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Tangster wrote...

I think...I'll just use whatever I want. The MP isn't difficult enough to make any weapon class other than SMG's useless.

I like this Quarian. It understands.

How is that acceptable? You are both in agreement that its ok for an entire weapon family (SMG's) to be useless. You are essentially saying not only is it ok for there to be junk "options" for players, but that players who spend credits or worse players who spend real $ should accept that there are junk weapons in the game because it makes the good weapons that much better? But who cares because the game isn't "difficult enough" anyway?

It is exactly that kind of reasoning that leads to what we have here.

Wall of text + my opinion inc.

Agreed. Just because people can clear Gold with ARs doesn't mean it's necessarily fine. It's quite obvious if you've used ARs (even with barrel and AP mod) that most are outclassed by snipers and pistols, even shotguns in some cases. Some are decent and viable options, such as Mattock and Vindicator (Revenant + Turian Soldier). Others are plain bad choices. I have played several games with Turian Soldier + Phaeston V and appropriate dmg mods to make it work, but I find myself switching to the Carnifex on the later waves so as not to gimp my team. (inb4 learn2aim. Carnifex headshots > AR clip both in time spent and damage taken out of cover)

ARs may be decent to mop up low enemies for biotics (Avenger X) because of weight, but as a main weapon they're lacking. I tried the GPR on Bronze vs. Geth, I actually laughed out loud after a few minutes thinking about
using it on Silver, let alone Gold. Headshots or not, good luck trying to carry a team or even pull your own weight when you're stuck with that. Give me a Carnifex/Phalanx anyday.

SMGs work for some classes with Ultralight just as a backup in case you're out of ammo + clips and you're hacking, and some (like the Hurricane) work as a light wannabe-shotgun up close. I'd never go into a match equipped with just an SMG however.

Disclaimer: This is my personal opinion, and I expect responses like "I scored 100k with the Phaeston, l2p". Good for you, but you probably would have scored more/spent less time with a pistol. I just feel that all weapons should be roughly equal in performance overall, even if they excel at and specialize in different things. I don't have the solution, but I'm sure I'm not alone in saying that there's no good reason to bring an AR besides look and feel (Turian Soldier is an exception for some) or Avenger X for 200% CD

Modifié par oppje, 23 mars 2012 - 09:50 .

[Tangster]

Mazandus wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

Tangster wrote...

I think...I'll just use whatever I want. The MP isn't difficult enough to make any weapon class other than SMG's useless.

I like this Quarian. It understands.

How is that acceptable? You are both in agreement that its ok for an entire weapon family (SMG's) to be useless. You are essentially saying not only is it ok for there to be junk "options" for players, but that players who spend credits or worse players who spend real $ should accept that there are junk weapons in the game because it makes the good weapons that much better? But who cares because the game isn't "difficult enough" anyway?

It is exactly that kind of reasoning that leads to what we have here.

I still don't think the vast majority of the AR class are crap enough to warrant a buff. The GPR yes. The Phaeston, maybe.
The reason why the I consider the SMG class to be worthless, but not the AR class is because the AR's at least hit their target the majority of the time. SMG's rarely hit the target with more than 1/3 of the burst, and the one SMG that does have reasonable accuracy appears to fire marhsmallows.

If you don't think it's acceptable, then fine. That's your perrogative, I'm simply saying that I'm just as happy with the AR class as it is now as I would likely be if the AR class was to be improved.