182 réponses à ce sujet

[Autochthon]

Lycidas wrote...

tvih wrote...

Shadowsword8 wrote...

The only thing really wrong with weapon balance is that armor should reduce XX% of incoming damage, not a flat amount per bullet.

This is the biggest issue, agreed.

However it's still not the only balance issue by far. All weapons should be viable, like they are in, say, Battlefield 3. But take something like the Hornet and compare it with a Locust. If spreadsheets are to be trusted, the former does 936 DPS at level I, while the latter does 360 at level X. How's that for balance? And it's hardly the one comparison to make.

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

I'm thinking... Skyrim.

The artifacts are often only as powerful as mid level equipment. And random loot can be better. On top of that it's possible to create your own gear that trumps ANYTHING the game has to offer.

Modifié par Autochthon, 02 avril 2012 - 01:22 .

[Axialbloom]

A lot of the issues have to do with the bad way they implemented armour. Flat damage reductions are nearly always bad things for enemy creatures to have. Percentages are the way to go.

However, some guns just must be bugged. The Arc pistol is perhaps the worst weapon in the game, despite the shown stats.

[Lycidas]

Autochthon wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

I'm thinking... Skyrim.

The artifacts are often only as powerful as mid level equipment. And random loot can be better. On top of that it's possible to create your own gear that trumps ANYTHING the game has to offer.

I don't get what you are trying to say. The loot in Skyrim is not rarity based its tier based.

Axialbloom wrote...

A lot of the issues have to do with the bad way they implemented armour. Flat damage reductions are nearly always bad things for enemy creatures to have. Percentages are the way to go.

 
Flat numbers punish low damage high ROF weapons % punish high damage low ROF weapons. How would the second one be better? Because you prefer AR's?

Modifié par Lycidas, 02 avril 2012 - 01:39 .

[tvih]

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

As a multiplayer game, the ME3 is a shooter. Yes, it has skill point assignment unlike BF3, but that does not excuse a ****ty unlock system and even less so unbalanced guns. The Locust is an uncommon "drop", the Hornet is rare. Does that excuse over 3x DPS difference? Or how about the fact that even the Shuriken, a starter weapon, has twice the DPS of the Locust, as well?

[Drogonion]

This player knows what he's talking about when it comes to ME3 weapons: http://social.biowar...index/9526427/1.

And I think he'd generally agree with the OP.

Modifié par Drogonion, 02 avril 2012 - 01:38 .

[Babydel]

I don't really get why the Avenger and other common for uncommon weapons should be good in Gold... Common are for Bronze and uncommon for Silver while you make your way to Gold weapons and rating.

This isn't an FPS game or whatever. Were all guns need to be balanced to make it an even playing field between all, it's an TPS-RPG hybrid, there should be better weapons and you slowly progress through them.

SMG is a backup weapon though, I don't think any SMG should be viable weapon by itself in Gold, but Assault Rifles needs one.

[born2beagator]

I saw a Javelin take down an Atlas in about 4 shots yesterday

[Autochthon]

Lycidas wrote...

Autochthon wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

I'm thinking... Skyrim.

The artifacts are often only as powerful as mid level equipment. And random loot can be better. On top of that it's possible to create your own gear that trumps ANYTHING the game has to offer.

I don't get what you are trying to say. The loot in Skyrim is not rarity based its tier based.

Lol, actually the loot in skyrim is 100% randomly generated with a (weakly) leveled list.

But you asked for a game wherein the rarest equipment is outdone by more common equipment. The rarest equipment n the game is artifact (IE legendary) equipment. And many items are beaten by common unenchanted drops to some degree or another, and outright destroyed by the echanted stuff. And that's ignoring the fact that you can MAKE any equipment you want that outdoes artifact stuff.

D2 makes a strong case too. Rares are sometimes much better than uniques of a certain class (Rare circlets have the best pool of stats in the game for helms).

Titan Quest had some cool sets, but in general the equipment at a given level was relatively flat across the board. Aside from those max level uber-sets that were still weak depending on skill loadout.

In Oblivion a randomly generated ring (Muindane Ring) had better stats than even the more powerful artifacts (and a couple of those were a complete **** to get).

Of course Skyrim and Oblivion have their "ultra rare" equipment quest bound so it's theoretically easier to obtain than higher level random loot but meh. I just haven't played many RPG's extensively for a while.

[Axialbloom]

Lycidas wrote...

Autochthon wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

I'm thinking... Skyrim.

The artifacts are often only as powerful as mid level equipment. And random loot can be better. On top of that it's possible to create your own gear that trumps ANYTHING the game has to offer.

I don't get what you are trying to say. The loot in Skyrim is not rarity based its tier based.

Axialbloom wrote...

A lot of the issues have to do with the bad way they implemented armour. Flat damage reductions are nearly always bad things for enemy creatures to have. Percentages are the way to go.

 
Flat numbers punish low damage high ROF weapons % punish high damage low ROF weapons. How would the second one be better? Because you prefer AR's?

I take it you failed maths at school.  Percentages punish everything equally.  25% reduction in damage means your one shot that does 1000 damage is reduced to 750.  It also reduces your 10 shots that do 100 damage each to 75 each.  Thus both do 750 damage.

[Autochthon]

Babydel wrote...

I don't really get why the Avenger and other common for uncommon weapons should be good in Gold... Common are for Bronze and uncommon for Silver while you make your way to Gold weapons and rating.

This isn't an FPS game or whatever. Were all guns need to be balanced to make it an even playing field between all, it's an TPS-RPG hybrid, there should be better weapons and you slowly progress through them.

SMG is a backup weapon though, I don't think any SMG should be viable weapon by itself in Gold, but Assault Rifles needs one.

Double post but... The problem with that thinmking is that equipment itself is random in this game. In other gaes tehre's at least some level-ties to take the sting off. In this one it doesn't matter what level you play at you can still get those golds/whatever and it really is just a numbers game to get the weapon you want.

Hence weapons should be balanced across the board. With the rarer weapons generally having special mechanic or special uses (Javelin/GPS/Arc Pistol)

[Lycidas]

tvih wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

As a multiplayer game, the ME3 is a shooter.

Irrelevant.

tvih wrote...
Yes, it has skill point assignment unlike BF3, but that does not excuse a ****ty unlock system and even less so unbalanced guns.

Your opinion

tvih wrote...
The Locust is an uncommon "drop", the Hornet is rare. Does that excuse over 3x DPS difference?

1. DPS is not everything the Locust is a hell of a lot easier to actually hit anything.
2. Hell yeah should the rare weapon outclass the uncommon one.

tvih wrote...
Or how about the fact that even the Shuriken, a starter weapon, has twice the DPS of the Locust, as well?

Again DPS is not everything. But yeah the Locust is a bit weak.

[Lycidas]

Axialbloom wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

Autochthon wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

I'm thinking... Skyrim.

The artifacts are often only as powerful as mid level equipment. And random loot can be better. On top of that it's possible to create your own gear that trumps ANYTHING the game has to offer.

I don't get what you are trying to say. The loot in Skyrim is not rarity based its tier based.

Axialbloom wrote...

A lot of the issues have to do with the bad way they implemented armour. Flat damage reductions are nearly always bad things for enemy creatures to have. Percentages are the way to go.

Flat numbers punish low damage high ROF weapons % punish high damage low ROF weapons. How would the second one be better? Because you prefer AR's?

I take it you failed maths at school. Percentages punish everything equally. 25% reduction in damage means your one shot that does 1000 damage is reduced to 750. It also reduces your 10 shots that do 100 damage each to 75 each. Thus both do 750 damage.

Wow starting your post with an insult makes you look so mature! Honest.
Now calculate again with 15 shots instead of 10. Thanks for proving my point?

[GGW KillerTiger]

 I agree the person(s) doing the balancing suck at it but in my opinion the weapons were fine until now ...... Oh well what ever I still play gold using ARs/SMGs and get 1rst or 2nd place on scoreboard will amongst all the nooby salaian engineers and salarian/quarian infiltrators playing gold geth on firebase white (stupid farmers play something else for once).

[Noliel]

LOL. I Use carnifex so much that my salarion infiltrator carries nothing but his trusty pistol into a match. Yes i play gold and up to now no one was able to beat me in score, not even close. Black widow, Widow and Valiant snipers included, they just cant keep up with the fast paced headshotting that a 3 sec cloak cooldown with free energy drain brings every 3 sec (Ofc you need to aim for the heads doh).

Modifié par Noliel, 02 avril 2012 - 02:47 .

[Axialbloom]

Lycidas wrote...

Axialbloom wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

Autochthon wrote...

Lycidas wrote...

You can not compare a luck based unlock (drop) system (most RPG's) with a level based one (BF3). Tell me one RPG where a rare/ultra rare weapon is remotely comparable to a common one of the same level.

I'm thinking... Skyrim.

The artifacts are often only as powerful as mid level equipment. And random loot can be better. On top of that it's possible to create your own gear that trumps ANYTHING the game has to offer.

I don't get what you are trying to say. The loot in Skyrim is not rarity based its tier based.

Axialbloom wrote...

A lot of the issues have to do with the bad way they implemented armour. Flat damage reductions are nearly always bad things for enemy creatures to have. Percentages are the way to go.

Flat numbers punish low damage high ROF weapons % punish high damage low ROF weapons. How would the second one be better? Because you prefer AR's?

I take it you failed maths at school. Percentages punish everything equally. 25% reduction in damage means your one shot that does 1000 damage is reduced to 750. It also reduces your 10 shots that do 100 damage each to 75 each. Thus both do 750 damage.

Wow starting your post with an insult makes you look so mature! Honest.
Now calculate again with 15 shots instead of 10. Thanks for proving my point?

Do you honestly not know how percentages work?  15 shots is 1500 damage, at 100 a shot.  This is reduced by the 25% to 15 x 75, which is 1125.  Now a single 1500 damage shot is reduced by the 25% to...1125.  Wow, the same damage!

This is basic stuff, buddy.  Any school kid should know this.

[SeanThen1]

I think to balance weapons properly they would need to move away from all big mobs having Armor AND Shields. Instead, take away a Banshee's armor and compensate so it has the same protection via shielding. One boss mob per faction should be all shields no armor, just make them immune to stasis.

Give some weapons the ability to chew through armor, the other shields. Balance ensues.

[niko20]

Why should an SMG work against heavy armor? That doesnt make sense. It sprays tiny bullets. Of course an armor penatly will make it useless. Thats the point.

[Trickshavv]

I love listening to butthurt over snipers.

The problem is rpg enthusiasts are being smacked around on the scoreboard by people who are good at shooters and the result is this whining. The problem is largely behind the keyboard.

Yes, many weapons suck. But that's not the *real* problem. The REAL problem is no matter what they do with weapons, good snipers will still rock the boards. Get better or accept that this is a co op game.

You should be grateful it's co op.

If it was competitive you people would explode from derp overload.

[Axialbloom]

niko20 wrote...

Why should an SMG work against heavy armor? That doesnt make sense. It sprays tiny bullets. Of course an armor penatly will make it useless. Thats the point.

Then it should be better against shields and barriers, like it was in ME2.  This mainly goes for ARs.

[Axialbloom]

Gankstah wrote...

I love listening to butthurt over snipers.

The problem is rpg enthusiasts are being smacked around on the scoreboard by people who are good at shooters and the result is this whining. The problem is largely behind the keyboard.

Yes, many weapons suck. But that's not the *real* problem. The REAL problem is no matter what they do with weapons, good snipers will still rock the boards. Get better or accept that this is a co op game.

You should be grateful it's co op.

If it was competitive you people would explode from derp overload.

I hope you are trolling.

[Lycidas]

Axialbloom wrote...

Do you honestly not know how percentages work? 15 shots is 1500 damage, at 100 a shot. This is reduced by the 25% to 15 x 75, which is 1125. Now a single 1500 damage shot is reduced by the 25% to...1125. Wow, the same damage!

This is basic stuff, buddy. Any school kid should know this.

Lol
Just keep turning the numbers...

In your example the slow firing weapon did 1000 points of damage not 1500
so the correct math would be:
- One shot at 1000pts. at 25% reduction = 750pts.damage total
- 10 shots at 100pts. of damage each at 25% reduction per shot = 75x10 = 750pts. damage total
- 15 shots at 100pts. of damage each at 25% reduction per shot = 75x15 = 1125pts. of damage total

Conclusion: higher ROF > higher damage per shot

Modifié par Lycidas, 02 avril 2012 - 02:32 .

[niko20]

The flat armor reduction is actually more realistic. In reality you cant shoot up a tank with an SMG. You need heavy weapons for heavy armor. It may be just a game but its gold level here so you need powerful weapons. I dont see a problem with it. And on silver most weapons work fine.

you can also put armor pierce on weapons and then add some ap ammo 3 or warp ammo 3? The ammo alone reduces armor protection by over 35%.

Modifié par niko20, 02 avril 2012 - 02:34 .

[RazRei]

Maria Caliban wrote...

RazRei wrote...

Sorry troll can't hear you over Kimbra.

/googles 'kimbra'
/finds youtube videos
/falls in love

Glad someone else enjoys good music.

[Axialbloom]

What the hell are you talking about? If the AR does 1500 damage before reduction OF COURSE we compare it against a Sniper Rifle doing 1500 damage before reduction. Why would anyone be stupid enough to compare a Sniper Rifle to an AR that does 50% more damage than it?

Honestly, are you STILL IN school or something?

Look: 1 shot of 100 damage gets reduced the same as 10 shots of 10 damage by percentage reduction.

[tvih]

Lycidas wrote...
....
Irrelevant.
...
Your opinion
...
1. DPS is not everything the Locust is a hell of a lot easier to actually hit anything.
2. Hell yeah should the rare weapon outclass the uncommon one.
...
Again DPS is not everything. But yeah the Locust is a bit weak.

About as irrelevant as the differences between ME3 and BF3. Balance is balance (or lack thereof), regardless of "genre". And in this case, the genre is "shooter", TPS vs FPS means nothing, it's basically the same damn thing at the end of the day. Fact is, you can't defend the game's current state with rarer = better anyway, because as is easily demonstrated, that is not even true in ME3.

Yes, so Hornet is rarer than Locust... and yes, it's slightly less accurate. But you only need to hit 33% of the time to match the DPS of a 100% hit ratio Locust, so kind of a moot point - the Locust is, plain and simple, a pointless weapon if you want any sort of real effectiveness. And I hit with the Hornet fine - just don't fire in aimed mode without cover. In higher difficulties you have to be in cover most of the time anyway. And while DPS isn't everything, sure, but Hornet is simply superior to... well, basically any other SMG in the game. And especially in Gold, targets have hell of a lot of health, so not enough DPS equals useless gun. And of course in Hornet's case the high DPS is combined with the highest per-bullet damage of any SMG with the exception of the Hurricane, and bullet damage is actually even more important than DPS in some cases, like Gold matches especially against Reapers.

Anyway, as said, rarer = better simply isn't true, so grasping at straws like "but it's an RPG!" to justify that as a defense is just silly. For one, there are huge discrepancies within the same level of rarity as compared to performance. Furthermore, more common weapons can be better than rarer ones - Mattock > GPR, Shuriken > Locust, Phalanx > Arc Pistol... and so on, and so on.

Not to mention one big thing in the whole balancing business - the whole weight to performance ratio where stuff like how most ARs tend to be utterly crappy in that department, especially because of low bullet damage. What good is a gun that does no damage against armor but weighs a ton, when you can take a light pistol that does damage said armor?