229 réponses à ce sujet

[zephuurs]

Silvair wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

Ah I see, so only one specific time of build/weapon should work. Makes perfect sense.

/Sigh

I guess you missed the part where any good player can demolish bronze with any build/weapon and carry a team with any reasonable build/weapon on silver.

I don't mind that you need a good build to play in gold. But, as an example, the soldier class (which I never play much since it is outclassed by any other class in gold) is totally useles in gold. But of course, that's the way it should be according to you. Oh yeah, forget using SMGs or assault rifles at all since there's only one way to beat gold efficiently- asari adept/salarian infiltrator/engineer. Who needs diverse team setups that use different class combinations?

Of course pressing 2 and then 3 as an Asari adept (OOPS I FORGET, PRESS 1 if you see a phantom) rinse and repeat is SOOO CHALLENGING.

Except that soldiers aren't useless.  I mainly play Soldier and Infiltrator right now.  Both did just fine on gold.

zephuurs wrote...

Here, let me finish bolding that for you. Let me italicize the part you missed reading as well 

some classes to be totally useless in gold compared to other classes?  

 

Modifié par zephuurs, 30 mars 2012 - 02:17 .

[Silvair]

zephuurs wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

 On the hardest difficulty in ANY game. 90% of all the gear is supposed to be almost useless. The hardest difficulty is supposed to make you think about what you use and how you use it. OP is right. Gold is NOT the standard and shouldn't be what everything is balanced around.

This is why you never take a Avenger on Insanity or use a AR on a Halo Legendary campaign although these weapons are perfectly viable on normal/hardcore because the enemies aren't on steroids. Some guns are simply meant to be better than others. The sooner these morons learn that the better. 

Ah I see, so only one specific time of build/weapon/asari adept/salarian infiltrator should work. Makes perfect sense.

/Sigh

No. Everything works on Gold. Some just better than others. Get over it.

Define "works" Of course you can beat gold with an underpowered class - does that mean it's not unbalanced? So you're saying that it's not unbalanced at all for some classes to be totally useless in gold compared to other classes? 

If a weapon is not as good on Gold, that does not mean it's unbalanced.  If the weapon were crap on Silver, then it would be.

Which is the point of the thread.  Gold is not the standard or the norm, it's the hardest difficulty.

[Silvair]

zephuurs wrote...

Silvair wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

Ah I see, so only one specific time of build/weapon should work. Makes perfect sense.

/Sigh

I guess you missed the part where any good player can demolish bronze with any build/weapon and carry a team with any reasonable build/weapon on silver.

I don't mind that you need a good build to play in gold. But, as an example, the soldier class (which I never play much since it is outclassed by any other class in gold) is totally useles in gold. But of course, that's the way it should be according to you. Oh yeah, forget using SMGs or assault rifles at all since there's only one way to beat gold efficiently- asari adept/salarian infiltrator/engineer. Who needs diverse team setups that use different class combinations?

Of course pressing 2 and then 3 as an Asari adept (OOPS I FORGET, PRESS 1 if you see a phantom) rinse and repeat is SOOO CHALLENGING.

Except that soldiers aren't useless.  I mainly play Soldier and Infiltrator right now.  Both did just fine on gold.

zephuurs wrote...

Here, let me finish bolding that for you. Let me italicize the part you missed reading as well 

some classes to be totally useless in gold compared to other classes?  

 

Except that's still wrong.  It's in no way useless even when compared to other classes.  You may have to be a better player to use them, but they are far from useless.

[jimmyw404]

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

[Phatose]

Gold should be a concern in terms of balancing.

It should *not* be the only concern, the sole thing we balance around - for the same reason we should not balance enemies around the Black Widow X. It's a subset of play, and should be treated as such.

[CheetahZ1]

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

[zephuurs]

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

Modifié par zephuurs, 30 mars 2012 - 02:30 .

[Silvair]

killacwalka3 wrote...

This is multiplayer in a tactical shooter. Weapons should not be inherently better than another. This game would be horrible for true competitive multiplayer because of this. The point of balancing is to make it so everything is equally effective, just in different aspects. This is the core philosophy of competitive multiplayer gaming. There should be no superweapons. An experienced player should not be granted an intrinsic advantage just because of the weapons he has been able to unlock. Adding competitive balance allows the competitive aspects of the game (scoreboard) to be balanced.

This is not an MMO and the MMO mindset that gear should make the difference is flawed for this type of game. What is the point of having multiple guns and classes if many of them are obsolete?

If everything was just "equal" then there would be no point to even having different weapons.

This isn't like most other shooters where the only difference is stats.  Each weapon functions entirely different in this.

[zephuurs]

Silvair wrote...

killacwalka3 wrote...

This is multiplayer in a tactical shooter. Weapons should not be inherently better than another. This game would be horrible for true competitive multiplayer because of this. The point of balancing is to make it so everything is equally effective, just in different aspects. This is the core philosophy of competitive multiplayer gaming. There should be no superweapons. An experienced player should not be granted an intrinsic advantage just because of the weapons he has been able to unlock. Adding competitive balance allows the competitive aspects of the game (scoreboard) to be balanced.

This is not an MMO and the MMO mindset that gear should make the difference is flawed for this type of game. What is the point of having multiple guns and classes if many of them are obsolete?

If everything was just "equal" then there would be no point to even having different weapons.

This isn't like most other shooters where the only difference is stats.  Each weapon functions entirely different in this.

More proof of reading comprehension fail.

Modifié par zephuurs, 30 mars 2012 - 02:33 .

[Silvair]

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

You do realize you can play a soldier by doing something besides standing out in the open with an assault rifle, right?

The point to Soldiers is that they have the heaviest firepower.  If one gun isn't working for you, USE A DIFFERENT GUN.

[CheetahZ1]

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

You misiniterpreted me. I was saying that there are a ton of arguments in this thread and no one's opinion is changing because everyone has their own evidence to the countrary.

For the record, Soldier is my favorite class. Not the best, but it fits my playstyle the best of running shotgun Havoc.

[zephuurs]

Silvair wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

You do realize you can play a soldier by doing something besides standing out in the open with an assault rifle, right?

The point to Soldiers is that they have the heaviest firepower.  If one gun isn't working for you, USE A DIFFERENT GUN.

Are you saying that the Revenant is an example of the "heaviest firepower" while the Javelin/Black Widow/Widow is not? More like if one class isn't working for you, use a different class.

[TexasToast712]

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

The soldier is just as effective as the other classes given that the player is good.

We ARE reading your posts. They just don't make any damn sense.
/thread.

[Silvair]

Oh, and also on the whole "There should be no superweapons?" I disagree. This is based upon the singleplayer. There are 3 definitive superweapons. The Claymore, the Revenant, and the Widow.

In Multiplayer, superweapons are for the hardest difficulty. They totally overpower things in Silver and Bronze, taking the fun out of it.

Aka, Superweapons are specifically for Gold, to handle the increase in difficulty. This way the majority of weapons stay balanced for the regular difficulties.

[zephuurs]

CheetahZ1 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

You misiniterpreted me. I was saying that there are a ton of arguments in this thread and no one's opinion is changing because everyone has their own evidence to the countrary.

For the record, Soldier is my favorite class. Not the best, but it fits my playstyle the best of running shotgun Havoc.

Ah I wasn't talking about you Cheetah, I was talking about 
jimmyw404 's failure to understand what you were saying.

[zephuurs]

TexasToast712 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

The soldier is just as effective as the other classes given that the player is good.

We ARE reading your posts. They just don't make any damn sense.
/thread.

Again, I'm not sure how you're defining "effective" but I would take a hunch and say by score. So you're saying a human soldier with any weapon can achieve the same score (on gold) as an equally skilled player playing a Salarian infiltrator with a Black Widow/Widow/Javelin? 

[Silvair]

zephuurs wrote...

Silvair wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

You do realize you can play a soldier by doing something besides standing out in the open with an assault rifle, right?

The point to Soldiers is that they have the heaviest firepower.  If one gun isn't working for you, USE A DIFFERENT GUN.

Are you saying that the Revenant is an example of the "heaviest firepower" while the Javelin/Black Widow/Widow is not? More like if one class isn't working for you, use a different class.

You don't need to switch to a different class.  Soldiers can use and maximize damage with ANY weapon.  That's the whole point to the class.  They are the weapon specialists.

And yes, the Revenant is much better for close range mobs of enemies and suppresive fire, while the Snipers are good for...you guessed it, sniping.

[jimmyw404]

zephuurs wrote...


Ah I wasn't talking about you Cheetah, I was talking about 
jimmyw404 's failure to understand what you were saying.

I know what you're saying.

You're saying, "I don't know how to english".

You mean to say, "There's no reason to pick a soldier over another class on gold.".

[Silvair]

zephuurs wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

The soldier is just as effective as the other classes given that the player is good.

We ARE reading your posts. They just don't make any damn sense.
/thread.

Again, I'm not sure how you're defining "effective" but I would take a hunch and say by score. So you're saying a human soldier with any weapon can achieve the same score (on gold) as an equally skilled player playing a Salarian infiltrator with a Black Widow/Widow/Javelin? 

Individual score isn't really relevant, this is a team based mode.  The Soldier is just as effective in that it functions in, works with, and supports the team just as well as any other.

[zephuurs]

Silvair wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

Silvair wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

You do realize you can play a soldier by doing something besides standing out in the open with an assault rifle, right?

The point to Soldiers is that they have the heaviest firepower.  If one gun isn't working for you, USE A DIFFERENT GUN.

Are you saying that the Revenant is an example of the "heaviest firepower" while the Javelin/Black Widow/Widow is not? More like if one class isn't working for you, use a different class.

You don't need to switch to a different class.  Soldiers can use and maximize damage with ANY weapon.  That's the whole point to the class.  They are the weapon specialists.

And yes, the Revenant is much better for close range mobs of enemies and suppresive fire, while the Snipers are good for...you guessed it, sniping.

Tell me how a soldier can "maximize" the damage of a Black Widow/Widow/Javelin/Mantis without cloak bonus and energy drain. Oh wait, you can't 

[TexasToast712]

zephuurs wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

zephuurs wrote...

CheetahZ1 wrote...

jimmyw404 wrote...

Anyone who thinks soldiers are useless on gold doesn't know what useless means:

use·less   [yoos-lis] Show IPA
adjective
1.
of no use; not serving the purpose or any purpose; unavailing or futile: It is useless to reason with him.

That example in there is just priceless for this thread.


The best way to prove things like this to people is to have them try it themselves, or for you to show them.

I swear, no one can actually read in this thread. If you're going to pick on my words, at least READ THE WHOLE THING. The soldier is USELESS compared to other classes because he doesn't bring anything to the table. He is USELESS because there is NO REASON to pick him over any other class. He does no damage since that requires prolonged exposure to fire, and even then assault rifles do subpar DPS because of armor. I would go on but most people that play gold already know the soldier is underpowered.

The soldier is just as effective as the other classes given that the player is good.

We ARE reading your posts. They just don't make any damn sense.
/thread.

Again, I'm not sure how you're defining "effective" but I would take a hunch and say by score. So you're saying a human soldier with any weapon can achieve the same score (on gold) as an equally skilled player playing a Salarian infiltrator with a Black Widow/Widow/Javelin? 

I'm judging by the ability to survive and kill. Score is irrelevant. This is a coop game. 

[CheetahZ1]

I never quite understood this argument. How is score not relevant? Salarian Engineer still scores high while providing cover with Decoy just as an example.

Modifié par CheetahZ1, 30 mars 2012 - 02:44 .

[zephuurs]

TexasToast712 wrote...

I'm judging by the ability to survive and kill. Score is irrelevant. This is a coop game. 

So in your mind a soldier with your weapon of choice has equal suvivability/ability to kill on gold compared to a Salarian Infiltrator with a Black Widow/Widow/Javelin. What a joke 

So what build is this mythical soldier using and how is he able to kill....let's say an Atlas/Geth Prime as fast as the SI? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to be as good as a medic the SI can be? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to survive as well as a SI that can cloak and reposition?

Modifié par zephuurs, 30 mars 2012 - 02:47 .

[Drummernate]

Bronze is for N7 level 1-50. Learning MP basics.

Silver is for your Average Joe looking to have fun while playing but still get some creds to upgrade stuff.

Gold is for masochist who enjoy extreme difficulty and dying painfully and often to some pretty bull$#% staggers.

Silver is the way to go when testing weapons... until they release Onyx difficulty levels!

[TexasToast712]

zephuurs wrote...

TexasToast712 wrote...

I'm judging by the ability to survive and kill. Score is irrelevant. This is a coop game. 

So in your mind a soldier with your weapon of choice has equal suvivability/ability to kill on gold compared to a Salarian Infiltrator with a Black Widow/Widow/Javelin. What a joke 

So what build is this mythical soldier using and how is he able to kill....let's say an Atlas/Geth Prime as fast as the SI? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to be as good as a medic the SI can be? Oh, and what build is this soldier using to survive compared to a SI that can cloak and reposition?

Adrenaline Rush + Revenant + Pierce + extended mag = dead prime real fast. 

You want to keep arguing yourself into a hole? I can do this all night, pal.