232 réponses à ce sujet

[GodlessPaladin]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
If we cut out all arbitrary info then the infilly will be around tier 3 which is just going to be a mistake.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

[Mysterious Stranger 0.0]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

I disagree, A classes ability to accomplish difficult task should be the main factor when designing the tier list even if it is not measurable. 

And how do you decided (in a non-arbitrary way) what is difficult? I may find killing banshees extraordinarily difficult, but a biotic detonating Asari Adept may find them easy.

Based on utility. 

Like i said it's hard to argue doing most things is harder with an Infilly than an asari.  Objectives,soloing, and reviving are all considered easier to do with the Infilly by most more so than anyother class. It''s not measurable by anything other than by testimony and opinion. Although that is of course arbitrary but if you ignore  all arbirtrary information then tier list are completley irrelevant always because anyone could suck at doing what ever is considered the best way to handle things. 

This is verifiably untrue. No other tier list that is even remotely respectable has anything to do with opinion or testimony. LoL tier lists, MMO BiS lists (mechanically the same thing) are created based on hard data. No one says "I felt like I had a better game because I used Swain" or "because I had a blue hat". It is based exclusively on data.

People ignore arbitrary data all the time in a tier list. When you rate one hero from HoN against another, any arbitrary data (like player skill) is discarded because to include such a thing would make the list impossible to create.

I'm sorry, but this is just simply not true.

Exactly.  As I've said many times before, by common and entirely reasonable convention player execution is assumed to be very high for the sake of tier lists, and as such Stranger's feelings about how "easy to use right" the Salarian Infiltrator is is irrelevant.

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
What about conflicting stats?
If a  character has 7 Stat A,and 9 Stat B but another character has 9
Stat A , and 7 stat B how do they break down which is better without
making an arbitrary arguement that Stat A is better than Stat B or vice
versa assuming both stats are situational.

If the
situations are different ENOUGH, then they might actually break it into different tier lists, such as an MMO having a separate tier list for PvE and PvP.  An example for ME3 would be a separate tier list for fighting Geth, Cerberus, and Reapers.

I don't think the factions are different enough to justify that  with the exception of a few classes(QI rated higher against the geth than the reapers) and even so if you cut out arbitrary info a lot of classes are going to be misplaced on all 3 list. Krogan Are great on paper but in use really are the bottom of the barrel. and Salarian Engineers will be at the very bottom due to most of decoys usefulness arbitrary and it's only measurable number that of it's detonation damage.

[Varthun]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

I disagree, A classes ability to accomplish difficult task should be the main factor when designing the tier list even if it is not measurable. 

And how do you decided (in a non-arbitrary way) what is difficult? I may find killing banshees extraordinarily difficult, but a biotic detonating Asari Adept may find them easy.

Based on utility. 

Like i said it's hard to argue doing most things is harder with an Infilly than an asari.  Objectives,soloing, and reviving are all considered easier to do with the Infilly by most more so than anyother class. It''s not measurable by anything other than by testimony and opinion. Although that is of course arbitrary but if you ignore  all arbirtrary information then tier list are completley irrelevant always because anyone could suck at doing what ever is considered the best way to handle things. 

This is verifiably untrue. No other tier list that is even remotely respectable has anything to do with opinion or testimony. LoL tier lists, MMO BiS lists (mechanically the same thing) are created based on hard data. No one says "I felt like I had a better game because I used Swain" or "because I had a blue hat". It is based exclusively on data.

People ignore arbitrary data all the time in a tier list. When you rate one hero from HoN against another, any arbitrary data (like player skill) is discarded because to include such a thing would make the list impossible to create.

I'm sorry, but this is just simply not true.

What about conflicting stats? If a  character has 7 Stat A,and 9 Stat B but another character has 9 Stat A , and 7 stat B how do they break down which is better without making an arbitrary arguement that Stat A is better than Stat B or vice versa assuming both stats are situational.

Because raw numbers like those can be turned in to exact measurements. It also can be decided based on which situation is more common. As a corollary note, if two characters (or gear pieces) are close enough that you must decide between them based on situational stats, they are usually considered equal.

But, and example: Physical Reduction vs Magical reduction in the game League of Legends. Both are situationally useful because they require that you be faced with two opposite damage types to get effectiveness out of. So, how do we determine which is better? Well, first things first. What kind of character is it? Squishy? Well then you want Magic reduction because the vast majority of spike damage is magic. Tanky? Then physical reduction because a large portion of the repetitive chip damage is physical. Which champions are popular in which roles? Kogmaw, a dps champ, is played a lot. So we lean heavier towards magic reduction to counteract his high magic damage. Ashe in vogue? Then we pick up physical reduction because Ashe is all about lots of small physical shots.

That's the kind of work that goes in to an actual tier list. It's all based on numerical superiority, or it's based on specific counters.


For a more pointed example: Lets say we have an ME3 team. In this team, we seem to do really well right up until we get an objective wave. So what we need is something really tanky, or evasive to be able to get those objectives quickly. Well, we have a few different options. Do we get an infiltrator, to cloak? Do we get an Asari, so we can stasis things and let other people get objectives in peace? Do we get a CC bot like a Salarian engineer so that we can keep the enemies away from the point and busy?

The key difference between these examples is that in one, you have actual provable data to work with. In the other, you are left with an arbitrary decision. When your data is trivial or abitrary, you cannot verifiably say that one choice is better than the other.

[Mysterious Stranger 0.0]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
If we cut out all arbitrary info then the infilly will be around tier 3 which is just going to be a mistake.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

Based on info that is only relevant to the indivdual correct? i find cloak useful but because someone else does not and it has no measurable numbers other than the dps boost it's a bad-mediocre power even if it allows the easiest revives in the game and makes 2/3 objective types a joke. 

[Varthun]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote... I disagree, A classes ability to accomplish difficult task should be the main factor when designing the tier list even if it is not measurable.

Everything that is observable is measurable.  If it's not observable... then there it is impossible for there to be evidence to support your claim.

The soloing of gold only being done by Infillies is the only observable evidence i have. And i think thats enough until you show your proof of soloing gold with the other classes. 

Bioware could also release statistics regarding gold which i imagine would provide further evidence to the difficulty of various classes accomplishing gold although it would be highly circumstantial. 

Gimicky gameplay does not a good class make. Example: There is a rogue in World of Warcraft that can, through various environmental tricks and clever gameplay, solo bosses which prior to those attempts were considered unsoloable. Does that mean rogues are the best class in the game?

So long as those enviormental tricks are not considered exploits If then yes at least for handling those bosses. 

Except we have data to support that rogues were the worst class in the game against that boss. Least damage delt, least utility provided. Could they perhaps end up solo'ing the boss through clever usage of ability? Perhaps. But in a practical situation, they were worse than any other class.

Gimicky gameplay does not a good class make.

How can they have the least utility when they can solo the boss? 
I wouldn't call that gimicky gameplay rather situational. But really dosen't apply to infillies since cloak is useful all around for dps,Survivability,Objectives, and reviving. 

If we cut out all arbitrary info then the infilly will be around tier 3 which is just going to be a mistake. Cloak isn't comparable to other powers through base numbers that dosen't make the poweuseless. 

It also doesn't necessarily make the power better.

Example: Which is better, Cloak or Stasis?

Here's a hint: neither.

They fill completely different roles and are not in any way, valid comparisons. One is an escape mechanic with dps built in. The other is a CC mechanic with the ability to create combos.

Let me restate my argument, to be clear: A tier list in this game is currently uncreatable due to a lack of hard numbers, and due to the situational usage of most classes.

[GodlessPaladin]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
If we cut out all arbitrary info then the infilly will be around tier 3 which is just going to be a mistake.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

Based on info that is only relevant to the indivdual correct? i find cloak useful but because someone else does not and it has no measurable numbers other than the dps boost it's a bad-mediocre power even if it allows the easiest revives in the game and makes 2/3 objective types a joke. 

...You can measure things more abstract than a clearly spelled out DPS listing, you know.  Scientists do this ALL THE DAMN TIME.  It's why you have that little thing called "technology" all around you.  It's why we can do amazing things like infer a great deal of the history of the cosmos.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 07 avril 2012 - 10:00 .

[Varthun]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
If we cut out all arbitrary info then the infilly will be around tier 3 which is just going to be a mistake.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

Based on info that is only relevant to the indivdual correct? i find cloak useful but because someone else does not and it has no measurable numbers other than the dps boost it's a bad-mediocre power even if it allows the easiest revives in the game and makes 2/3 objective types a joke. 

The problem is, that terms like "bad", "good", "mediocre" are not applicable here. Part of my problem with the tier list is that you are comparing disparate examples. Cloak, as an escape mechanism is amazing. Just like Stasis, as a CC power, is amazing. So no, I don't think cloak is bad. I just don't think an escape mechanism (or the class that relies on it) should really be compared to a CC mechanism (and the class that relies on it).

[Dachau Joseph]

God tier - Drell Vanguard
Garbage tier - everyone else

[Mysterious Stranger 0.0]

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

I disagree, A classes ability to accomplish difficult task should be the main factor when designing the tier list even if it is not measurable. 

And how do you decided (in a non-arbitrary way) what is difficult? I may find killing banshees extraordinarily difficult, but a biotic detonating Asari Adept may find them easy.

Based on utility. 

Like i said it's hard to argue doing most things is harder with an Infilly than an asari.  Objectives,soloing, and reviving are all considered easier to do with the Infilly by most more so than anyother class. It''s not measurable by anything other than by testimony and opinion. Although that is of course arbitrary but if you ignore  all arbirtrary information then tier list are completley irrelevant always because anyone could suck at doing what ever is considered the best way to handle things. 

This is verifiably untrue. No other tier list that is even remotely respectable has anything to do with opinion or testimony. LoL tier lists, MMO BiS lists (mechanically the same thing) are created based on hard data. No one says "I felt like I had a better game because I used Swain" or "because I had a blue hat". It is based exclusively on data.

People ignore arbitrary data all the time in a tier list. When you rate one hero from HoN against another, any arbitrary data (like player skill) is discarded because to include such a thing would make the list impossible to create.

I'm sorry, but this is just simply not true.

What about conflicting stats? If a  character has 7 Stat A,and 9 Stat B but another character has 9 Stat A , and 7 stat B how do they break down which is better without making an arbitrary arguement that Stat A is better than Stat B or vice versa assuming both stats are situational.

Because raw numbers like those can be turned in to exact measurements. It also can be decided based on which situation is more common. As a corollary note, if two characters (or gear pieces) are close enough that you must decide between them based on situational stats, they are usually considered equal.

But, and example: Physical Reduction vs Magical reduction in the game League of Legends. Both are situationally useful because they require that you be faced with two opposite damage types to get effectiveness out of. So, how do we determine which is better? Well, first things first. What kind of character is it? Squishy? Well then you want Magic reduction because the vast majority of spike damage is magic. Tanky? Then physical reduction because a large portion of the repetitive chip damage is physical. Which champions are popular in which roles? Kogmaw, a dps champ, is played a lot. So we lean heavier towards magic reduction to counteract his high magic damage. Ashe in vogue? Then we pick up physical reduction because Ashe is all about lots of small physical shots.

That's the kind of work that goes in to an actual tier list. It's all based on numerical superiority, or it's based on specific counters.


For a more pointed example: Lets say we have an ME3 team. In this team, we seem to do really well right up until we get an objective wave. So what we need is something really tanky, or evasive to be able to get those objectives quickly. Well, we have a few different options. Do we get an infiltrator, to cloak? Do we get an Asari, so we can stasis things and let other people get objectives in peace? Do we get a CC bot like a Salarian engineer so that we can keep the enemies away from the point and busy?

The key difference between these examples is that in one, you have actual provable data to work with. In the other, you are left with an arbitrary decision. When your data is trivial or abitrary, you cannot verifiably say that one choice is better than the other.

So are you saying all tier list are void because too many powers are arbitrary? if not how do your propose we do a tier list that properly represents the usefulness of powers like Cloak and stasis? 

[GodlessPaladin]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
So are you saying all tier list are void because too many powers are arbitrary? if not how do your propose we do a tier list that properly represents the usefulness of powers like Cloak and stasis?

The usefulness of cloak and stasis is objectively observable, not arbitrary.

[Mysterious Stranger 0.0]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
If we cut out all arbitrary info then the infilly will be around tier 3 which is just going to be a mistake.

I don't think arbitrary means what you think it means.

Based on info that is only relevant to the indivdual correct? i find cloak useful but because someone else does not and it has no measurable numbers other than the dps boost it's a bad-mediocre power even if it allows the easiest revives in the game and makes 2/3 objective types a joke. 

...You can measure things more abstract than a clearly spelled out DPS listing, you know.  Scientists do this ALL THE DAMN TIME.  It's why you have that little thing called "technology" all around you.  It's why we can do amazing things like infer a great deal of the history of the cosmos.

So are you saying we should use arbitrary data for the tier list? 

[Mysterious Stranger 0.0]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
So are you saying all tier list are void because too many powers are arbitrary? if not how do your propose we do a tier list that properly represents the usefulness of powers like Cloak and stasis?

The usefulness of cloak and stasis is objectively observable, not arbitrary.

How do you transfer that into a measurement though without making a tier list for every seperate enemy in every give situation? 

[Varthun]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
So are you saying all tier list are void because too many powers are arbitrary? if not how do your propose we do a tier list that properly represents the usefulness of powers like Cloak and stasis? 

By splitting classes in to more specific roles.

Example:

DPS Tier list:
Good - Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Vanguard
Medium - Turian Sentinel, Human Vanguard
Bad - Salarian Engineer, Krogan Sentinel

Support Tier List:
Good - Salarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel
Medium - Salarian Infiltrator, Human Vanguard
Bad - Krogan Sentinel, Drell Vanguard

Tank Tier List:
Good - Krogan Sentinel, Human Vanguard
Medium - Turian Sentinel, Salarian Engineer
Bad - Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Vanguard


In this example, you are rating a class based on what it is supposed to do and what role it will generally fill.
Not on how high on some arbitrary score board that (in truth) doesn't really change how the match ends.

That's the way MOBA games do tier lists, it's the way MMO's do BiS lists, and I think it would work here, if we could get more data.

Modifié par Varthun, 07 avril 2012 - 10:06 .

[Mysterious Stranger 0.0]

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

I disagree, A classes ability to accomplish difficult task should be the main factor when designing the tier list even if it is not measurable. 

And how do you decided (in a non-arbitrary way) what is difficult? I may find killing banshees extraordinarily difficult, but a biotic detonating Asari Adept may find them easy.

Based on utility. 

Like i said it's hard to argue doing most things is harder with an Infilly than an asari.  Objectives,soloing, and reviving are all considered easier to do with the Infilly by most more so than anyother class. It''s not measurable by anything other than by testimony and opinion. Although that is of course arbitrary but if you ignore  all arbirtrary information then tier list are completley irrelevant always because anyone could suck at doing what ever is considered the best way to handle things. 

This is verifiably untrue. No other tier list that is even remotely respectable has anything to do with opinion or testimony. LoL tier lists, MMO BiS lists (mechanically the same thing) are created based on hard data. No one says "I felt like I had a better game because I used Swain" or "because I had a blue hat". It is based exclusively on data.

People ignore arbitrary data all the time in a tier list. When you rate one hero from HoN against another, any arbitrary data (like player skill) is discarded because to include such a thing would make the list impossible to create.

I'm sorry, but this is just simply not true.

What about conflicting stats? If a  character has 7 Stat A,and 9 Stat B but another character has 9 Stat A , and 7 stat B how do they break down which is better without making an arbitrary arguement that Stat A is better than Stat B or vice versa assuming both stats are situational.

Because raw numbers like those can be turned in to exact measurements. It also can be decided based on which situation is more common. As a corollary note, if two characters (or gear pieces) are close enough that you must decide between them based on situational stats, they are usually considered equal.

But, and example: Physical Reduction vs Magical reduction in the game League of Legends. Both are situationally useful because they require that you be faced with two opposite damage types to get effectiveness out of. So, how do we determine which is better? Well, first things first. What kind of character is it? Squishy? Well then you want Magic reduction because the vast majority of spike damage is magic. Tanky? Then physical reduction because a large portion of the repetitive chip damage is physical. Which champions are popular in which roles? Kogmaw, a dps champ, is played a lot. So we lean heavier towards magic reduction to counteract his high magic damage. Ashe in vogue? Then we pick up physical reduction because Ashe is all about lots of small physical shots.

That's the kind of work that goes in to an actual tier list. It's all based on numerical superiority, or it's based on specific counters.


For a more pointed example: Lets say we have an ME3 team. In this team, we seem to do really well right up until we get an objective wave. So what we need is something really tanky, or evasive to be able to get those objectives quickly. Well, we have a few different options. Do we get an infiltrator, to cloak? Do we get an Asari, so we can stasis things and let other people get objectives in peace? Do we get a CC bot like a Salarian engineer so that we can keep the enemies away from the point and busy?

The key difference between these examples is that in one, you have actual provable data to work with. In the other, you are left with an arbitrary decision. When your data is trivial or abitrary, you cannot verifiably say that one choice is better than the other.

So are you saying all tier list are void because too many powers are arbitrary? if not how do your propose we do a tier list that properly represents the usefulness of powers like Cloak and stasis? 

By splitting classes in to more specific roles.

Example:

DPS Tier list:
Good - Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Vanguard
Medium - Turian Sentinel, Human Vanguard
Bad - Salarian Engineer, Krogan Sentinel

Support Tier List:
Good - Salarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel
Medium - Salarian Infiltrator, Human Vanguard
Bad - Krogan Sentinel, Drell Vanguard

Tank Tier List:
Good - Krogan Sentinel, Human Vanguard
Medium - Turian Sentinel, Salarian Engineer
Bad - Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Vanguard


In this example, you are rating a class based on what it is supposed to do and what role it will generally fill.
Not on how high on some arbitrary score board that (in truth) doesn't really change how the match ends.

Very intresting.
But i hope that's not your real list and is just an example or i think it's what i feared would be wrong with using this method in that although the Krogan sentinel looks good on paper the SI and human vanguard will generally be able to take more damage due to energy drain and charge. 

And how would support be measured? 

Modifié par Mysterious Stranger 0.0, 07 avril 2012 - 10:10 .

[Varthun]

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...

Very intresting. But i hope that's not your real list and is just an example or i think it's what i feared would be wrong with using this method in that although the Krogan sentinel looks good on paper the SI and human vanguard will generally be able to take more damage due to energy drain and charge. 

And how would support support measured? 

Nah, it was just a quick type up based on some classes I could think of. Support would be measured in terms of "How well do you help your allies do their job?"

A Salarian Engineer, for example makes it very easy to outplay a wave with Decoy. A Turian Sentinel can help set up or detonate any kind of combo, while having the weight to bring along stagger weapons (falcon) and the power of Overload stun to save a teammate.

[Elite3141]

Currylaksa wrote...

Low tier:

Krogan Soldier, Krogan Sentinel, Drell Vanguard, Human Adept, Quarian Engineer

I use Krogan Soldier all the time on Gold. I usually score the highest, too. As long as you aren't trying to do a melee build on Gold, Krogan Soldier is really good at crowd control. It's not as awful as everyone thinks. Human Adept would be good if Asari Adept didn't outclass it. You can Warp + Shockwave or Singularity + Warp/Shockwave.

[Varthun]

So, not so much based on raw score, but how well they help others achieve maximum score/wave killing power.

An example from League: Sona doesn't really do a whole lot. But, she has a stun, a slow, and a damage buff. This makes her one of the better supports, not because of what she does, but because of what she helps her team do.

[amd098]

My take

Adepts - Asari >= Drell >>> Human
Drell with area reave sets up a great amount of explosions, and with cluster nades they help vs brutes and banshees really well

Engineers - Salarian > Human = Quarian
Decoy is great, but the human sets up tech bursts while the quarian uses cyro+incinerate to deal great dmg as well

Infiltrators - Salarian > Quarian = Human
Humans get better weight and damage, but using the exploding hack is great as well when tied to a biotic explosion

Sentinels - Human > Turian > Krogan
Turian can use warp and overload, but the krogan just melees stuff, on gold he'll die in 0.5 seconds, so he's not that great

Soldiers - Turian > Krogan = Human
Marksman is what you need, the other two class perks are no where near as great as marksman.  Krogan melee is not as good on gold, nor are the limited nades or concussive shot


Vanguard - Good Human > Asari > Drell > nooblet Human
A GOOD human vanguard is great in gold as he's got biotics with him.  A horrible one is terrible and dies instantly.  Knowing how to nova cancel and having a good carnifax help a lot for the human one.  Asari stasis helps vs cerberus, and on lower difficulties her AoE heavy melee is like a slow nova.  Drell, is just bad as can only detonate on already charged targets and does no dmg with pull/throw to shielded or armored targets..

[tonnactus]

GodlessPaladin wrote...


Widow or BW vs unshielded Cerberus goon:  1 shot.
Carnifex vs unshielded Cerberus  goon:  1 shot, and it's FASTER, both because of the guns capacity/fire rate and because you aren't waiting for cloak cooldowns.

Widow or BW vs shielded Cerberus goon:  2 shots.
Carnifex vs unshielded Cerberus  goon:  2 shots, and it's FASTER, both because of the gun's capacity/fire rate and because you aren't waiting for cloak cooldowns.

Widow or BW vs Phantom:  2 headshots if you have perfect aim and they aren't using their abilities successfully.
Carnifex vs Phantom:  3 shots, and stasis means you have perfect aim and they aren't using their abilities period.  Oh yeah, and you still get out shots with the Carnifex faster!

An infiltrator didnt necessarily have to use sniper rifles...(played a quarian pistol infiltrator)

[JaimasOfRaxis]

Worth noting that the BF3 Soldier is quite effective; Carnage blends well with the class's other abilities to create an offensive force that is greater than the sum of its parts, especially with the recent frag grenade buff turning frags into the second most powerful explosives in the game.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

I use Krogan Soldier all the time on Gold. I usually score the highest, too. As long as you aren't trying to do a melee build on Gold, Krogan Soldier is really good at crowd control. It's not as awful as everyone thinks. Human Adept would be good if Asari Adept didn't outclass it. You can Warp + Shockwave or Singularity + Warp/Shockwave.

As evidenced by Krogan Broteam runs, this is accurate.

[GodlessPaladin]

Finished a solo gold run w/ Asari Vanguard, uploading video now.

JaimasOfRaxis wrote...

I use
Krogan Soldier all the time on Gold. I usually score the highest, too.
As long as you aren't trying to do a melee build on Gold, Krogan Soldier
is really good at crowd control. It's not as awful as everyone thinks.
Human Adept would be good if Asari Adept didn't outclass it. You can
Warp + Shockwave or Singularity + Warp/Shockwave.

As evidenced by Krogan Broteam runs, this is accurate.

I thought the point of krogan runs was to artificially increase the challenge. I've done a krogan broteam run and, while successful, it was harder for me than soloing as an Asari.  As to "usually scoring the highest," I find that no matter what class I play I get the highest score in pubs.  That doesn't really say anything about the quality of the classes... it says something about the quality of the teammates 

If you're good enough and have a decent weapon you can solo with any class.  That doesn't change that some classes are better than others.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 07 avril 2012 - 11:21 .

[ScaredPeach]

You humans are all racist

[GodlessPaladin]

tonnactus wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...


Widow or BW vs unshielded Cerberus goon: 1 shot.
Carnifex vs unshielded Cerberus goon: 1 shot, and it's FASTER, both because of the guns capacity/fire rate and because you aren't waiting for cloak cooldowns.

Widow or BW vs shielded Cerberus goon: 2 shots.
Carnifex vs unshielded Cerberus goon: 2 shots, and it's FASTER, both because of the gun's capacity/fire rate and because you aren't waiting for cloak cooldowns.

Widow or BW vs Phantom: 2 headshots if you have perfect aim and they aren't using their abilities successfully.
Carnifex vs Phantom: 3 shots, and stasis means you have perfect aim and they aren't using their abilities period. Oh yeah, and you still get out shots with the Carnifex faster!

An infiltrator didnt necessarily have to use sniper rifles...(played a quarian pistol infiltrator)

Yes, but an infiltrator doesn't get stasis or biotic charge, and the damage bonus isn't actually helping much in this case. 
Stick with your sniper.  Sniper rifles are awesome and moreover sniper infiltrators fill a distinct role via roflstomping larger enemies.

(Also, obviously, that should say "shielded" where it says it's 2 shots >_>)

Varthun wrote...

Mysterious Stranger 0.0 wrote...
So
are you saying all tier list are void because too many powers are
arbitrary? if not how do your propose we do a tier list that properly
represents the usefulness of powers like Cloak and stasis? 

By splitting classes in to more specific roles.

Example:

DPS Tier list:
Good - Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Vanguard
Medium - Turian Sentinel, Human Vanguard
Bad - Salarian Engineer, Krogan Sentinel

Support Tier List:
Good - Salarian Engineer, Turian Sentinel
Medium - Salarian Infiltrator, Human Vanguard
Bad - Krogan Sentinel, Drell Vanguard

Tank Tier List:
Good - Krogan Sentinel, Human Vanguard
Medium - Turian Sentinel, Salarian Engineer
Bad - Salarian Infiltrator, Drell Vanguard


In this example, you are rating a class based on what it is supposed to do and what role it will generally fill.
Not on how high on some arbitrary score board that (in truth) doesn't really change how the match ends.

That's
the way MOBA games do tier lists, it's the way MMO's do BiS lists, and I
think it would work here, if we could get more data.

I think your list is pretty inaccurate, but then I recognize that it was just an example to demonstrate the format.

For one, Krogan Sentinel is not even in the same galaxy as the Human Vanguard when it comes to tanking.  I also find your choice of categories odd.  For example, "Support" is overly nebulous, and there's a big difference in DPS against single enemies or groups.  A widow-wielding Salarian, for example, is superior in the role of clearing large, tough enemies, but less efficient at clearing the rest of the army than other high tier classes.

DPS in general seems like a relatively useless term in many cases; it's far more relevant in games like WoW where you are continuously reapplying the same pattern over a period of time to a target or group of targets, as opposed to swiftly taking out groups of little enemies with one or two actions.

Throw, for example, doesn't do high DPS, but it'll clear out 3 husks with a click with practically zero opportunity cost.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 07 avril 2012 - 11:48 .

[GodlessPaladin]

Video! Asari Vanguard Gold Solo Part 1 is done uploading:

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 07 avril 2012 - 11:57 .