550 réponses à ce sujet

[SaturnRing]

Rudy Lis wrote...


Although most of police operations generally involves ranges up to 300 metres, give or take, some of them could be even closer. And IIRC military operations in build-up areas also could involve similar "short" ranges. Yet sniper rifles still used.

I think main problem of ME2/3, when they decided to make weapon distinctly different in 2 and then add "fillers" for 3, is lack of proper feeling of weapon system and weapons' properities, like mass or power. I don't mean those "death spins" - energy transmission calculations anyone?

For example, Widow supposed to be AMR, so it's basically .50 BMG of modern days. How many people we heard of, actually survived wound from such weapon? Okay, future, armor, implants. It's still AMR, so it's power should be adjusted as well. Not sure it will be accepted, but, I'd say Widow should not only OSOK most of enemies, it should make fights with Atlases much easier. Sort of "two shots - we got new atlas". And it's weight. 40 kg my arse - I cannot help but lol at game ending, after "SCUD defense" scene, when convoy arrives to Beam, stops and decide to execute final run. I like how Shepard runs with Widow or Black widow - holding them in one hand and waving them like they made of carton. Yes, he got implants, it's still 40 kg weapon. Try to wave 20 litres jerrycan this way. Try to stop it instantly at ending phases. Feel pain in joints and muscles? Even if armor is somehow powered, all servos will be overloaded. Same reason precludes tank crews using gyro-stabilizer of their cannons all the time - too much load and it's quite precise technic. Not to mention how 40kg weapon should encumber soldier in general, not only doing all those rolls.

Plus there is a way too much weapon now, some of which are barely distinct or needed. I understand, collector's edition, pre-order bonuses, but still. "Lots of guns lies ahead of you. Most of them useless".

You make a good point about the W and the BW. I came to consider both as anti materiel almost unconsciously; to me they're synonymous with destructive power and encumbrance. In my views they should be brought onto the field for only a few specific missions. But this is where my perception of what a SR and a sniper role are and what the game tells me  i can do clash.

Modifié par SaturnRing, 26 avril 2012 - 12:20 .

[Ferocious7]

Eragondragonrider wrote...

I love the N7 Valiant with time-slow and +weapon dmg also have armor rounds, thing is bad to the bone. Quick three shots and fast reload works awesome on insanity and will out dps the black widow because of the quicker reload.

This.  I have used all of the ones available within the game and used the ones mentioned most here on Insanity missions... and still there is no doubt the N7 Valiant is my preference.  I can dispatch multiple enemies fast given I am accurate and the reload speed is great.  I rarely have enjoyed sniper rifles in the Mass Effect games thus far (yes they were fun, but it was never one of my main weapons, until the Valiant).. the reason for me is the Valiant replaced a shotgun for my Vanguard on Insanity.. used it up close no scoping and it works great give it's power AND speed.    Everytime I find myself using another sniper rifle for a bit of time, I switch back to the Valiant when given the chance... my playstyle is hitting hard and fast with accuracy with a combination of powers/abilities and weapons.  I am also often moving all around and it works great.   

Modifié par Ferocious7, 26 avril 2012 - 12:36 .

[Rudy Lis]

SaturnRing wrote...

You make a good point about the W and the BW. I came to consider both as anti materiel almost unconsciously; to me they're synonymous with destructive power and encumbrance. In my views they should be brought onto the field for only a few specific missions.

 
Well, you should be able to bring them, but I'd say they should have thermal scope on by default, all of them (since we are not in Splinter Cell or ArmA - that Javelin thingy will do) and they should have enourmous penetration for soft targets, regardless shields and barrier. Not to mention walls or, heh, "windows". 5 guardians in column, through shields? Easy.  My Shep killed human-reaper larva with Widow after all. Every shot should be "wtfpwnage" (kudos to JaegerBane).
Not to mention encumbrance and overall speed. But I guess they won't do it - it will require rehashing all "balance", not to mention 90% of "adrenalin gameplay" based on kewl running and rolling. Imagine slowly moving Shepard? No way to avoid grenade now. The horror, the horror.

SaturnRing wrote...

But this is where my perception of what a SR and a sniper role are and what the game tells me  i can do clash.

Police snipers could act on short distances. Problem only that in game distances usually very short - sniping those Nemesis snipers and Centurion on Eden Prime at about 30-50 metres is about as long as it's generally gets. If not for nerfed Mattock accuracy, SR could be useless most of the time.
So I'll guess if they decided to give all guns to all classes and draw "accuracy" card for SR (and innacuracy for AR), they should rework existing SR system. Especially rapid-fire models. Viper was wonderful back in ME2 and now what we have? Bleh.

OF course, this is Soldier's PoV, I know little about other classes. Plus, I'd reworked existing soldier class mechanics, it's too weak now. Well, maybe not weak, but dull.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 26 avril 2012 - 01:41 .

[Renegade133]

Valient for me fast reloads with 3 shots always downed at least a few guys

[SaturnRing]

Rudy Lis wrote...

 
Well, you should be able to bring them, but I'd say they should have thermal scope on by default, all of them (since we are not in Splinter Cell or ArmA - that Javelin thingy will do) and they should have enourmous penetration for soft targets, regardless shields and barrier. Not to mention walls or, heh, "windows". 5 guardians in column, through shields? Easy.  My Shep killed human-reaper larva with Widow after all. Every shot should be "wtfpwnage" (kudos to JaegerBane).
Not to mention encumbrance and overall speed. But I guess they won't do it - it will require rehashing all "balance", not to mention 90% of "adrenalin gameplay" based on kewl running and rolling. Imagine slowly moving Shepard? No way to avoid grenade now. The horror, the horror.

I second that. But you see, this is the reason why i like the Avenger/Predator so much. As versatile as they are, they're  far from perfect. They will do the job that an AR or a pistol are supposed to do but not more. That is genius and balance. It forces me to be innovative, and put in place the best strategy/loadout i can for every missions. Now spread that approach for all weapons, and each of them becomes relevant and has its very defined function.   

[Athenau]

This isn't a realistic shooter. Bioware made a conscious choice to truncate engagement ranges in ME2 and that isn't ever going to change. Making comparisons to actual military/police sniping is totally pointless.

[JaegerBane]

Athenau wrote...

This isn't a realistic shooter. Bioware made a conscious choice to truncate engagement ranges in ME2 and that isn't ever going to change. Making comparisons to actual military/police sniping is totally pointless.

I dunno about it being totally pointless. At the very least, comparisons give a better idea as to what individual players can expect from the different SRs. The point of the thread is to gather opinions on what SRs are best, and why, after all.

[Quething]

Athenau wrote...

This isn't a realistic shooter. Bioware made a conscious choice to truncate engagement ranges in ME2 and that isn't ever going to change. Making comparisons to actual military/police sniping is totally pointless.

Which is just so sad. I really miss shooting geth from halfway across the map under the red light of binary suns.  Felt like real sniping, all patience and setup and reaping the reward in power and safety. Now I mostly play vanguard and shotgun infiltrator because the game's all melee and waist-high cover anyway.

That said, I do love the Valiant. In ME2 I actually primarily used the Mantis, modded to a three-shot clip, and lo and behold they give that to me as a base gun in 3.

[JaegerBane]

Rudy Lis wrote...

SaturnRing wrote...

You make a good point about the W and the BW. I came to consider both as anti materiel almost unconsciously; to me they're synonymous with destructive power and encumbrance. In my views they should be brought onto the field for only a few specific missions.

 
Well, you should be able to bring them, but I'd say they should have thermal scope on by default, all of them (since we are not in Splinter Cell or ArmA - that Javelin thingy will do) and they should have enourmous penetration for soft targets, regardless shields and barrier. Not to mention walls or, heh, "windows". 5 guardians in column, through shields? Easy.  My Shep killed human-reaper larva with Widow after all. Every shot should be "wtfpwnage" (kudos to JaegerBane).
Not to mention encumbrance and overall speed. But I guess they won't do it - it will require rehashing all "balance", not to mention 90% of "adrenalin gameplay" based on kewl running and rolling. Imagine slowly moving Shepard? No way to avoid grenade now. The horror, the horror.
 

I'm not so sure - I think I'd have to disagree with a number of points there.

Firstly, the relative power. Sure, I'm all for Sniper Rifles being very powerful, but lets not forget that within the fiction, kinetic barriers are *designed* to provide protection from sniper rounds. We have no modern day equivalent. Firing straight through shields should be something reserved for weapons beyond the point of being man-portable.

Encumbarance is one of those things that sound great on paper but in most games, sucks. More often than not, getting slowed down is more of an irritant and an annoyance than it is an increase in challenge. I can see why they left it out.

Typically I'm always a little unsure about making weapons in sci-fi games *too much* like modern day stuff. They made that mistake in the Halo series and it resulted in the patently ridiculous situation of having conventional guns (even using the same calibres as we have today) being used in an interstellar conflict 500 years in the future, that had been raging for 30 years despite significantly better technology being available for the majority of that time. Its like depicting MW3 with people using flintlocks and muskets, it doesn't fit.

[SaturnRing]

JaegerBane wrote...

Rudy Lis wrote...

SaturnRing wrote...

You make a good point about the W and the BW. I came to consider both as anti materiel almost unconsciously; to me they're synonymous with destructive power and encumbrance. In my views they should be brought onto the field for only a few specific missions.

 
Well, you should be able to bring them, but I'd say they should have thermal scope on by default, all of them (since we are not in Splinter Cell or ArmA - that Javelin thingy will do) and they should have enourmous penetration for soft targets, regardless shields and barrier. Not to mention walls or, heh, "windows". 5 guardians in column, through shields? Easy.  My Shep killed human-reaper larva with Widow after all. Every shot should be "wtfpwnage" (kudos to JaegerBane).
Not to mention encumbrance and overall speed. But I guess they won't do it - it will require rehashing all "balance", not to mention 90% of "adrenalin gameplay" based on kewl running and rolling. Imagine slowly moving Shepard? No way to avoid grenade now. The horror, the horror.
 

I'm not so sure - I think I'd have to disagree with a number of points there.

Firstly, the relative power. Sure, I'm all for Sniper Rifles being very powerful, but lets not forget that within the fiction, kinetic barriers are *designed* to provide protection from sniper rounds. We have no modern day equivalent. Firing straight through shields should be something reserved for weapons beyond the point of being man-portable.

Encumbarance is one of those things that sound great on paper but in most games, sucks. More often than not, getting slowed down is more of an irritant and an annoyance than it is an increase in challenge. I can see why they left it out.

Typically I'm always a little unsure about making weapons in sci-fi games *too much* like modern day stuff. They made that mistake in the Halo series and it resulted in the patently ridiculous situation of having conventional guns (even using the same calibres as we have today) being used in an interstellar conflict 500 years in the future, that had been raging for 30 years despite significantly better technology being available for the majority of that time. Its like depicting MW3 with people using flintlocks and muskets, it doesn't fit.

I probably contributed to establishing a paralel between fiction and reel guns. Deep down i prefer not to as i think that having a knowledge of modern fire arms shouldn't be relevant - at least not significantly - in sci fi weaponry discussion. I thought the game makers took a huge risk by coming up with a concept of overheating guns with almost unlimited ammo in ME1. But i was more than willing to go along with that concept. My only wish was to see that approach developed in a consistent way. Apart from Spectre gear - too good to be" true" - i was somewhat satisfied with the different weapon's loadouts in ME1 - maybe with a little more flexibility and weapon variety...
While i don't think the introduction of thermal clip is a bad idea - far from it - it was a step back from that original concept; from that point on comparisons were inevitable; thermal clip scarcity made it even worse. Fixing those complaints or shortcomings for ME3 led us to something even closer to reality. I'm nostalgic of the time when all you had to worry about was fitting you guns with frictionless Materials and watch you rof to prevent overheating. The weapons upgrade system was complex enough to require good strategy in how mods were best utilized.
The particle Beam concept is where i wish things stood. 

Modifié par SaturnRing, 26 avril 2012 - 08:50 .

[Rudy Lis]

[quote]SaturnRing wrote...

I second that. But you see, this is the reason why i like the Avenger/Predator so much. As versatile as they are, they're  far from perfect. They will do the job that an AR or a pistol are supposed to do but not more. That is genius and balance. It forces me to be innovative, and put in place the best strategy/loadout i can for every missions. Now spread that approach for all weapons, and each of them becomes relevant and has its very defined function.   
[/quote]

Well, that's the problem and it occurs always as soon as developers decide to "broaden arsenal". When you pour a lot of guns, each being barely distinct from another, it is practically unevitable to run into situation when you will have brain meltdown in attempt to make guns useful. That's especially horrible when there are different variants of "arsenal", depending on game version (collector's, pre-order), plus there is policy "we don't want them to miss any of content". Or like endings. They either be vastly different (not our case) or blended to smoothiness (our case exactly).


[quote]Athenau wrote...

This isn't a realistic shooter. [/quote]

Excuse me, but this is oxymoron. If it is "realistic", it'll never be "shooter", it will be "sim". If this is "shooter", it'll never be realistic - "believable", tops.


[quote]Athenau wrote...

Bioware made a conscious choice to truncate engagement ranges in ME2 and that isn't ever going to change. Making comparisons to actual military/police sniping is totally pointless.[/quote]

Well, given their policy to make modding difficult, I'd agree. But some of us play many different games, and some of discussions here may lead to useful ideas, which could be used in modding of other games. Or, maybe, though personally I really doubt that, some of them will be used by developers in their future projects. Of course, our persuasiveness+D20 should beat artistic integrity first...


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

I'm not so sure - I think I'd have to disagree with a number of points there. [/quote]

Since I'm no artist and have no integrity, I have no problems with that.


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

Firstly, the relative power. Sure, I'm all for Sniper Rifles being very powerful, but lets not forget that within the fiction, kinetic barriers are *designed* to provide protection from sniper rounds. We have no modern day equivalent. Firing straight through shields should be something reserved for weapons beyond the point of being man-portable.[/quote]

Don't forget that we talk here about AMR. Or anti-tank-rifles from WWII era (by concept, of course, modern South African NTW-20 or Austrian Steyr IWS, IIRC sort of "relatives" to those rifles). They designed to deal with materiel and there were no strict words, saying that materiel isn't protected either by thick layer of armor or kinetic barrier. So we can assume "future AMR" will have enough power to deal with them somehow. (Speculations from everyone!) They may be designed for work in special purpose sniper pairs or team, when one, first sniper, use, say, "Heavy disruptor ammo", overloading shields and then, second, almost instantly, fires normal round to deal with target directly. Of course, tapping adrenaline rush will automatically reloads you now so you can play as that pair. But this is just a version.


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

Encumbarance is one of those things that sound great on paper but in most games, sucks. More often than not, getting slowed down is more of an irritant and an annoyance than it is an increase in challenge. I can see why they left it out.[/quote]

Nah, it's fine. I play a lot in OFP/ArmA (BIS ones, not from codelamers), there you cannot sprint forever, you have crosshair sway (and it depends on your fatigue and injuries), you can't roll, jump, ammo is highly limited and generally enemy use completely different weapon, so you cannot just pick up his mags. More than that, there is DISTANCE. So you can be killed by enemy sniper at, say, 800 metres after crawling through rainy forest for 5 hours, just because at very beginning of the mission another enemy sniper killed your medic and wound you in the leg, so you can't run, walk, stand or sit - only lay down and crawl. And it wouldn't be script-kill - it will be natural kill from enemy sniper.
Of course, I know ArmA is different kind of game. I know that. ME3 maps so small, so I really don't know how it is possible to got tired, annoyed or irritated by slow-walking there. And I never been avatar of tranquility, quite the contrary.
I never played vanguard seriously, but there is a saying about "high-risk>high-reward". AMR should be that kind of weapon. And other than encumbrance I see no other way, because I really don't care about overload - they can replace -200% with -40K% percent, I don't give a damn, because if I use it, I generally use it once. Or don't use it at all.


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

Typically I'm always a little unsure about making weapons in sci-fi games *too much* like modern day stuff. They made that mistake in the Halo series and it resulted in the patently ridiculous situation of having conventional guns (even using the same calibres as we have today) being used in an interstellar conflict 500 years in the future, that had been raging for 30 years despite significantly better technology being available for the majority of that time. Its like depicting MW3 with people using flintlocks and muskets, it doesn't fit.

[/quote]

Come on! History always developing in cycles!
No, seriusly. Flint-locks and muskets? You may not believe me, but we just discussed them. From my point of view, first rifles... Well, they weren't rifles due lack of "rifling". Whatever, they were somewhat similar to modern AMR/ATR in purpose - to stop advancing heavily-armoured cavalry (and infantry, of course). As one of factors there was range (or lack thereof), about 50 metres... Oh, wait.
I think we both can find real reasons justifying usage of "modern calibres" in Halo universe.


[quote]SaturnRing wrote...

I probably contributed to establishing a paralel between fiction and reel guns. Deep down i prefer not to as i think that having a knowledge of modern fire arms shouldn't be relevant - at least not significantly - in sci fi weaponry discussion. [/quote]

That's the problem with Sci-fi - if you created something you have to base it on something, and back it up by something. Space magic works in fantasy, but not in sci-fi.


[quote]SaturnRing wrote...

I thought the game makers took a huge risk by coming up with a concept of overheating guns with almost unlimited ammo in ME1. But i was more than willing to go along with that concept. My only wish was to see that approach developed in a consistent way. Apart from Spectre gear - too good to be" true" - i was somewhat satisfied with the different weapon's loadouts in ME1 - maybe with a little more flexibility and weapon variety...[/quote]

Why Spectre gear is too good to be true? IIRC correctly, their parametres weren't significantly better than, say, Rosenkov's. Yes, they still were better, but in percents, not times. And theirexorbitant prices (irrelevant in ME1 economics) sort of reflecting that. If you drop down "name price" for famous gun maker now, especially custom one, removes any exteriour "bells and whistles", irrelevant to gun performance (like etched portrait of your wife on stock of your hunting rifle - did it really gives +5 to accuracy and +10 to morale?), gun's prices from that segment could be exorbitant too. And they will be better than their "stock" counterparts. In times? No. Percents? Maybe.


[quote]SaturnRing wrote...

While i don't think the introduction of thermal clip is a bad idea - far from it - it was a step back from that original concept; from that point on comparisons were inevitable; thermal clip scarcity made it even worse. [/quote]

May I add that their respawn made it even worse than worse.
I don't think that clips are bad idea, I don't like how they were implemented and that's why I think they are bad "as is".


[quote]SaturnRing wrote...

Fixing those complaints or shortcomings for ME3 led us to something even closer to reality. I'm nostalgic of the time when all you had to worry about was fitting you guns with frictionless Materials and watch you rof to prevent overheating. The weapons upgrade system was complex enough to require good strategy in how mods were best utilized.
The particle Beam concept is where i wish things stood.
[/quote]

No disagreement on that. Because current mod system is not developed well too.

[Athenau]

Excuse me, but this is oxymoron. If it is "realistic", it'll never be "shooter", it will be "sim". If this is "shooter", it'll never be realistic - "believable", tops.

I'm using "shooter" as a generic term for "video game that revolves around shooting". Let's not turn this into a ridiculous semantic argument please.

Well, given their policy to make modding difficult, I'd agree. But some of us play many different games, and some of discussions here may lead to useful ideas, which could be used in modding of other games. Or, maybe, though personally I really doubt that, some of them will be used by developers in their future projects. Of course, our persuasiveness+D20 should beat artistic integrity first...

Sure, but that doesn't have any bearing on Mass Effect. Complaining that weapons in ME don't behave like their real-life analogues is silly. They haven't done so for the entire history of the franchise, so I'm not sure why you'd expect realism now.

The game is what it is. I'm far more annoyed at the bad weapon balance and prevalence of power spam than I am at the fact that the Widow doesn't behave like a real anti-materiel rifle.

Modifié par Athenau, 26 avril 2012 - 10:03 .

[Rudy Lis]

Athenau wrote...

I'm using "shooter" as a generic term for "video game that revolves around shooting". Let's not turn this into a ridiculous semantic argument please.

There are many games revolving around shooting, but I wouldn't name them neither shooters or sims.
But if you want, let's not.

Athenau wrote...

Sure, but that doesn't have any bearing on Mass Effect. Complaining that weapons in ME don't behave like their real-life analogues is silly. They haven't done so for the entire history of the franchise, so I'm not sure why you'd expect realism now.

If it helps you to understand how to properly modify ingame files to make game suitable for you, I fail to see how "silly" it is.

Athenau wrote...

The game is what it is. I'm far more annoyed at the bad weapon balance and prevalence of power spam than I am at the fact that the Widow doesn't behave like a real anti-materiel rifle.

Well, you say it yourself. We all have our own "coordinate grids" defining what we want, what we like and what pisses us off. For me Widow behavior is part of bad weapon balance and I don't know nothing about power spam, since I don't use any. If you talk about multiplayer, I too fail to see how it is bad - if you team won and game was fair, what else matters?

[Athenau]

If it helps you to understand how to properly modify ingame files to make game suitable for you, I fail to see how "silly" it is.

But no amount of modding is going to change fundamental engine and map limitations. You're never going to get the game to behave like you want, so why bother trying?

Well, you say it yourself. We all have our own "coordinate grids" defining what we want, what we like and what pisses us off. For me Widow behavior is part of bad weapon balance and I don't know nothing about power spam, since I don't use any.

It's a question of expectations. You wouldn't buy Unreal Tournament expecting that it played like Arma, so why would you do the same thing for Mass Effect? It's been five years since ME1 and the weapons have never been even remotely realistic.  At this point there's really no excuse for not knowing what you're getting into with a ME game.

If you talk about multiplayer, I too fail to see how it is bad - if you team won and game was fair, what else matters?

It's bad because it encourages degenerate gameplay. Rolling your face over the keyboard to trigger biotic detonations every two seconds should not provide a much greater payoff as skillful shooting, yet it does. That's a far more serious problem than realism (or lack thereof).  The ME2 synergy of shooting and power use was much better calibrated IMO, and more true to the lore.

Modifié par Athenau, 26 avril 2012 - 11:01 .

[Rudy Lis]

Athenau wrote...

But no amount of modding is going to change fundamental engine and map limitations. You're never going to get the game to behave like you want, so why bother trying?

Map limitations - yes. Not sure for engine. So far I only want to try to modify projectiles velocity and spread.

Athenau wrote...

It's a question of expectations. You wouldn't buy Unreal Tournament expecting that it played like Arma, so why would you do the same thing for Mass Effect? It's been five years since ME1 and the weapons have never been even remotely realistic.  At this point there's really no excuse for not knowing what you're getting into with a ME game.

Well, I bought ME3 because I expected good story (at least on par with ME2) and, sort of return "back to basics" of ME1, according to dev's promises. Lies, total lies.
Since story is incapable to hook me more - I played 5 times for that and seen all combos I wanted, now I'm interested in gameplay. Well, not interested, actually, got sick of it during those 5 playthroughs, but recent Indra aquisition make gameplay interesting again. Of course it revolves only around Indra, but, if discussion with fellow colleagues will provide certain inspirational spark - I'm all up for it.
Ow, and it's not about realism, it's about consistency. From instahit projectiles in ME1 to 50 m/s in ME2 and around 100 m/s in ME3? That's "hypervelocity"? Bwa. Ha. Ha. Innate innacuracy nearby.

Athenau wrote...

It's bad because it encourages degenerate gameplay. Rolling your face over the keyboard to trigger biotic detonations every two seconds should not provide a much greater payoff as skillful shooting, yet it does. That's a far more serious problem than realism (or lack thereof).  The ME2 synergy of shooting and power use was much better calibrated IMO, and more true to the lore.

Agree on last sentence.
Not sure for first, though - I don't play multiplayer, I don't use powers (practially, only ammo power), so I'm in no position to judge. But if what you said is true and I have no reasons not to trust you, then it's another sign how bad ME3.

Modifié par Rudy Lis, 26 avril 2012 - 11:24 .

[Athenau]

Agree on last sentence.
Not sure for first, though - I don't play multiplayer, I don't use powers (practially, only ammo power), so I'm in no position to judge. But if what you said is true and I have no reasons not to trust you, then it's another sign how bad ME3.

I prefer the weapon based classes as well and don't play much multiplayer. But I think balance is important even in SP, and power spam is a big contributor to the perception of ME3's difficulty being a "joke".

Even with all these problems I don't think the game is bad. Combat has the potential to be much more dynamic than both ME1 and ME2, the fundamental mechanics are sound, but the devil's in the details. A couple of extra months worth of playtesting and number tweaking could have caught these problems. ME3 has all the hallmarks of a game pushed out the door too early.

[Rudy Lis]

Athenau wrote...

I prefer the weapon based classes as well and don't play much multiplayer. But I think balance is important even in SP, and power spam is a big contributor to the perception of ME3's difficulty being a "joke".

I think difficulty is a joke even for people like me, who not using abilities, other than ammo powers. And most of the time I used Garrus/Vega team, not very "ability-based" teammates, really. At least active abilities. I think it's a side effect of "wider target auditory" or whatever - now more people can brag they beat insanity.

Athenau wrote...

Even with all these problems I don't think the game is bad. Combat has the potential to be much more dynamic than both ME1 and ME2, the fundamental mechanics are sound, but the devil's in the details. A couple of extra months worth of playtesting and number tweaking could have caught these problems. ME3 has all the hallmarks of a game pushed out the door too early.

Unfortunately I think game is bad. Not because I dislike dynamic of ME3 and prefer pacing of ME1, and not only because, as you said, of  "devil in details", but because by my opinion there is a way too many flaws in storywriting and writing in general. But if lay story aside (ahem, for story-based game (for me), it's condemnation, practically "found guilty"), I tend to agree, that several months of playtesting and balancing should fix gameplay. Only game is almost 2 month old and so far I see no progress toward fixing existing issues, what makes me think ME3 is... abandoned. And somehow I doubt we will see Community Patch 1.74.

[Dead_Meat357]

The Black Widow hands down. While the Javelin and the M-98 Widow are unquestionably more powerful, the Black Widow isn't that far behind when upgraded. Additionally being a 3-shot semi-automatic, you've got more margin for error and even if you don't error, you can simply take out more enemies at one time. It's also worth mentioning that the Black Widow, M-98 Widow and Javelin are the only weapons which can penetrate most light cover without armor piercing ammunition and without the sniper rifle AP mod. This frees up your mod slots for other things. As a solider I find the sniper rifle extended barrel and the sniper rifle concentration mods the best bets for most situation.

Now, the Javelin is a solid runner up. I don't like the delay, horrible ammunition capacity or the fact that it's single shot, but it is undeniably powerful and the scope it has makes using it a nice experience. I just wish I could put that scope on my Black Widow. If I could do that I'd be all set.

[Brettic]

Update: Valiant was perfect on Insanity until the end when you go to earth, then it wasn't one and two shotting mooks anymore, switch to BW after that point and all is well.

both at level X, Valiant performs best until earth, then BW overtakes it, on Insanity.

[Dead_Meat357]

Brettic wrote...

Update: Valiant was perfect on Insanity until the end when you go to earth, then it wasn't one and two shotting mooks anymore, switch to BW after that point and all is well.

both at level X, Valiant performs best until earth, then BW overtakes it, on Insanity.

Only things the Valiant has over the Black Widow are reduced recoil and less weight. But as I said, the penetration power of the Black Widow through cover far surpasses that of the Valiant. You'd need the sniper rifle AP mod or AP ammunition to do what the Widow does anyway.

[Rudy Lis]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

Only things the Valiant has over the Black Widow are reduced recoil and less weight. But as I said, the penetration power of the Black Widow through cover far surpasses that of the Valiant. You'd need the sniper rifle AP mod or AP ammunition to do what the Widow does anyway.

With all my love of penetration and AP ammo, how often we really need cover penetration ability? AP mod/AP ammo (or both), combined with Valiant RoF and no muzzle-flip could be very useful and negate BW power for most situations.

[chevyguy87]

I prefer the Mantis. Love that rifle. The Javelin and the Widows are too overpowered, overkill on most enemies and too damn heavy (in my opinion). I love the fact that when the Mantis is upgraded properly it can become just as good as the Javelin/Widows, weigh less and be a little more accurate.

[All-a-Mort]

Brettic wrote...

Update: Valiant was perfect on Insanity until the end when you go to earth, then it wasn't one and two shotting mooks anymore, switch to BW after that point and all is well.

both at level X, Valiant performs best until earth, then BW overtakes it, on Insanity.

Yeah, Valiant in London, especially on the missile section against mutliple Brutes, Banshees and Marauder Shields' buddies, Valiant wasn't much good. My nearly entirely sniper soldier had to revert to Revenant, as the Valiant wasn't taking out the Reaper troops quickly enough

[JaegerBane]

Rudy Lis wrote...
Don't forget that we talk here about AMR. Or anti-tank-rifles from WWII era (by concept, of course, modern South African NTW-20 or Austrian Steyr IWS, IIRC sort of "relatives" to those rifles). They designed to deal with materiel and there were no strict words, saying that materiel isn't protected either by thick layer of armor or kinetic barrier. So we can assume "future AMR" will have enough power to deal with them somehow.

The problem with such an assumption is that its made perfectly clear that kinetic barriers create a situation where single-shot weapons are inherently disadvantaged. They're performing precisely in situations where they're sub-optimal - the equivalent of attempting to use an AMR on something like a UAV today. Hence, I can't honestly agree that an AMR should shoot through multiple enemies or one-shot everything. Were it realistic to design a rifle that could do this and still be man-portable, things like kinetic barriers and barrier circumventing techniques would never have been developed. There's an internal logic to the universe that is in conflict with the suggestion.

Come on! History always developing in cycles!
No, seriusly. Flint-locks and muskets? You may not believe me, but we just discussed them. From my point of view, first rifles... Well, they weren't rifles due lack of "rifling". Whatever, they were somewhat similar to modern AMR/ATR in purpose - to stop advancing heavily-armoured cavalry (and infantry, of course). As one of factors there was range (or lack thereof), about 50 metres... Oh, wait.
I think we both can find real reasons justifying usage of "modern calibres" in Halo universe.

I think its really straining the boundaries of plausibility to suggest that the only reason why things like muskets and whatnot were retired were down to range. The fact that their reliability, practicality and capability were all rubbish in comparison to cartridges played far more part than range.

I could accept it if there was some kind of reasoning to explain why firearm progression had not moved on, like the fact that they were still extremely effective in their role. The point is that, in Halo's case, they aren't - often needing the best part of a 60 round 7.62mm clip to down a single shield. There are vastly more effective weapons lying all over the place in the form of plasma weapons, and yet the UNSC still sticks with ancient stuff? No way.

This was one of the reasons why I like ME's take on weapons. They were technologies that were clearly the result of conventional firearm design being applied to a radical and newly developed scientific phenomenom (in this case Mass Effect fields, but in other fiction could be electronic ballistic pulses from Aliens or Gauss weaponry from Starcraft). But they are nonetheless based around totally different fictional technologies, so on that basis, the idea that should pose any more than a passing resemblance to modern day weapons doesn't really make sense, and certainly not something the developers should seek to achieve.

[JaegerBane]

Dead_Meat357 wrote...

Brettic wrote...

Update: Valiant was perfect on Insanity until the end when you go to earth, then it wasn't one and two shotting mooks anymore, switch to BW after that point and all is well.

both at level X, Valiant performs best until earth, then BW overtakes it, on Insanity.

Only things the Valiant has over the Black Widow are reduced recoil and less weight. But as I said, the penetration power of the Black Widow through cover far surpasses that of the Valiant. You'd need the sniper rifle AP mod or AP ammunition to do what the Widow does anyway.

This isn't totally correct. The native penetration of the BW isn't particularly great - the figure that is passed around is about 0.25 metres and and unknown level of damage reduction, effectively giving it less penetration power than a level 1 mod. Enought to punch clean through a guardian shield or a window, but not enough to make as much difference as you're implying. If you honestly want to be punching through cover with the BW then, realistically, you need to take an AP mod to do it properly.

Realitsically, the BW's major advantage is packing a single-shot sniper rifle's punch into a semi-auto weapon. Lower recoil lends vastly more effectiveness to a weapon than a bit of cover penetration. Saying that 'youd' need a mod to do what the BW does naturally' isn't really an argument as the converse isn't true for it - there are no recoil mods for SRs therefore, while you'd need a mod to get the Valiant to penetrate as well as the BW (in reality a modded Valiant will do *significantly better* penetration with a high level mod), you can never manage to get the BW to repeatedly hit as well as the Valiant. The chips are in the Valiant's corner for that one.

Don't get me wrong - out of the two I can confidently say the BW has won me over, largely for balance reasons (i.e. its the only sniper rifle that focuses on offering both semi-auto and single-shot advantages at the same time). But the BW certainly isn't a flat-out superior weapon to the Valiant. I regard them as equal.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 avril 2012 - 03:45 .