232 réponses à ce sujet

[Malanek]

I think the thing that needs nerfing the most is Throw.

[Atheosis]

Cyonan wrote...

Schneidend wrote...

I like the sound of this. I've never been opposed to Soldier buffs, but even if Soldiers of all races suddenly became amazing in one glorious patch I still think power spam and biotic detonations would yet remain overpowered.

It would largely depend. Given the setup of the Soldier's powers, they would need to deal among the best single target damage in game, both burst and sustained, since they have such poor utility. Every Adept has some kind of CC, even though Pull is admittedly pretty weak CC. They also do AoE dps via biotic combos.

Then you would need to have a set damage vs utility for the classes for balance. Of course this would require a new difficulty tier or massive buffs to enemies since boosting Soldiers above biotics in terms of effectiveness at killing would just make gold as easy aas FBW/Geth on every map.

At this point I'm very leery of buffing Soldiers too much.  They are actually much better than people give them credit for when specced and played properly.  My power damage/weight specced Human Soldier spamming Concussive Shot and using a Falcon is a beast, often keeping pace with Infiltrators and Asari Adepts on Gold.  My Batarian and Turian Soldiers also do relatively well for themselves (Krogan Soldier is pretty brutal though I will admit).  


Adrenaline Rush needs some work, and grenade supply needs to be fixed so that they are no longer a second class of powers, but overall Soldiers are not bad if you put time into figuring them out.

Modifié par Atheosis, 17 avril 2012 - 09:07 .

[Atheosis]

AremihcO wrote...

What time have they tended to update the balance change post?

In a few hours.

People shouldn't be surprised though when they do virtually nothing, if last week is any indication.

[Father Alvito]

Atheosis wrote...

Adrenaline Rush needs some work, and grenade supply needs to be fixed so that they are no longer a second class of powers, but overall Soldiers are not bad if you put time into figuring them out.

Have you considered the possibility that you are bad at weapon selection?

The Human Soldier is presently better than 'needs some work'.  If sabresandiego hasn't conclusively demonstrated that to you, I don't know what will.  I wouldn't call it optimal, but if you're going to buff AR you'd better nerf the Striker.

In general, I agree with you when it comes to grenades.  The Drell have the only one that's presently worthwhile, and it's pretty bad on the Vanguard.  The Adept gets a sizable amount of mileage out of it due to its ability to detonate Reave.

[InstaShark]

Father Alvito wrote...

Amusing condescending statement

We're talking about nerfing/buffing things, not how proper grammar relates to said issue.

Schneidend wrote...

Reasonable argument.

I don't care about Adrenaline Rush on MP. Too busy using Batarian Soldier.

But just because the Soldier doesn't have as high a DPS as the Infiltrator, it doesn't mean you should nerf cloak buffs to make it as mediocre as the former. But that's just my opinion.

Modifié par InstaShark, 17 avril 2012 - 09:14 .

[Father Alvito]

InstaShark wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Amusing condescending statement

We're talking about nerfing/buffing things, not how proper grammar relates to said issue.

Grammar and definitions are totally different concepts.  You could use a dictionary and look this up.

[Scarlet_Meister]

I'm pretty certain, the Paladin got a weight buff;
yesterday I had a cooldown of around +150% with Asari Adept, specced for 30% less Heavy Pistol weight an maximum weigth reduction with a Paladin III.
Now I have a +178% cooldown )
Finally can take my favorite weapon on all classes again!

Edit: Just noticed, it also has extended reserve ammo (23 Shots in reserve now, 18 yesterday) but only holds 3 shots instead of 4 per magazine :/

Modifié par Scarlet_Meister, 17 avril 2012 - 09:18 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

GPS needs nerfing...

[InstaShark]

Father Alvito wrote...

InstaShark wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Amusing condescending statement

We're talking about nerfing/buffing things, not how proper grammar relates to said issue.

Grammar and definitions are totally different concepts.  You could use a dictionary and look this up.

My, someone loves stroking their e-peen.

I'm honestly not caring, either way. It's off topic and should not even be in this thread.

[Father Alvito]

InstaShark wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

InstaShark wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Amusing condescending statement

We're talking about nerfing/buffing things, not how proper grammar relates to said issue.

Grammar and definitions are totally different concepts.  You could use a dictionary and look this up.

My, someone loves stroking their e-peen.

I'm honestly not caring, either way. It's off topic and should not even be in this thread.

It isn't off-topic and I maintain that you're either too stupid or too uncurious to see why.

To help you out a bit: we're talking balance, and the definition of what requires balance matters.

Modifié par Father Alvito, 17 avril 2012 - 09:20 .

[ImTheOx]

KroganSmash wrote...

This week in mass effect! Due to much complaining we have replaced all weapons with sticks and rocks. Happy hunting!

Hahaha
I think all Weapons are well balanced, why would they nerf some of them
They SHould Buff up the Human Soldier! make Frag Granades do more damage, its like throwing FireCrackers at Enemies

[Atheosis]

Father Alvito wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Adrenaline Rush needs some work, and grenade supply needs to be fixed so that they are no longer a second class of powers, but overall Soldiers are not bad if you put time into figuring them out.

Have you considered the possibility that you are bad at weapon selection?

The Human Soldier is presently better than 'needs some work'.  If sabresandiego hasn't conclusively demonstrated that to you, I don't know what will.  I wouldn't call it optimal, but if you're going to buff AR you'd better nerf the Striker.

In general, I agree with you when it comes to grenades.  The Drell have the only one that's presently worthwhile, and it's pretty bad on the Vanguard.  The Adept gets a sizable amount of mileage out of it due to its ability to detonate Reave.

Did you not read my whole post?  I said I keep pace with SI's and AA's with my Human Soldier.  I was saying that I'm leery of too many buffs to soldiers because they are actually fairly good when specced and played right.  And the AR/Striker combo wouldn't be any issue even with an AR buff.  That gun runs out of ammo in virtually a couple seconds.  Even in the hands of an elite player, AR/Striker, even with a buff, couldn't touch many of the power DPS builds.

And just to be clear I feel that AR simply needs to last a lot longer more than needing an actual buff to its damage bonus.

[TSCIGAR]

Atheosis-

(forgive the lack of a quote. I hate quote pyramids)

Fair enough. You're right in that cloak should be looked at separately. GPS still does wreck on other classes, and your suggestion would probably help mitigate that.

As an aside, I think Father Alvito is talking crosswise here. He ignores the fact that you're saying soldiers are underrated in the same post he quotes, going on to criticize you for underrating them. He says that if you're going to buff a power, then you need to nerf one gun to compensate. I think that's exactly what SHOULD happen. All human soldiers have that power, not all human soldiers will bring that gun with them. Sounds very reasonable to me.

[InstaShark]

Father Alvito wrote...

It isn't off-topic and I maintain that you're either too stupid or too uncurious to see why.

To help you out a bit: we're talking [about] balance, and the definition of what requires balance matters.

Fixed it.

How about you just talk about what should be balanced, then, instead of trying to argue on the definition?

[Father Alvito]

Atheosis wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Adrenaline Rush needs some work, and grenade supply needs to be fixed so that they are no longer a second class of powers, but overall Soldiers are not bad if you put time into figuring them out.

Have you considered the possibility that you are bad at weapon selection?

The Human Soldier is presently better than 'needs some work'.  If sabresandiego hasn't conclusively demonstrated that to you, I don't know what will.  I wouldn't call it optimal, but if you're going to buff AR you'd better nerf the Striker.

In general, I agree with you when it comes to grenades.  The Drell have the only one that's presently worthwhile, and it's pretty bad on the Vanguard.  The Adept gets a sizable amount of mileage out of it due to its ability to detonate Reave.

Did you not read my whole post?  I said I keep pace with SI's and AA's with my Human Soldier.  I was saying that I'm leery of too many buffs to soldiers because they are actually fairly good when specced and played right.  And the AR/Striker combo wouldn't be any issue even with an AR buff.  That gun runs out of ammo in virtually a couple seconds.  Even in the hands of an elite player, AR/Striker, even with a buff, couldn't touch many of the power DPS builds.

And just to be clear I feel that AR simply needs to last a lot longer more than needing an actual buff to its damage bonus.

a) Does keeping pace imply that you're good and that the people you're playing with are bad, or that the class is underpowered?  You state that AR needs work.  This implies the latter, not the former.  Why claim that your first paragraph was your 'true' claim when the second undermines the claim?

Just because the gun runs out of ammo rapidly does not imply that the gun is poor.  Again, the videos in question present a strong argument that Human Soldier + Striker + proper consumables = strong.

c) If that's what you meant re: AR, you should have come out and said that rather than trying to fault me ex post for failing to read your mind.  The fact that you would try to clarify in that manner is seriously poor on your part.  If you failed to communicate properly, man up and admit it.  Don't try to shift the blame like that.

TSCIGAR wrote...

As an aside, I think Father Alvito is talking crosswise here. He ignores the fact that you're saying soldiers are underrated in the same post he quotes, going on to criticize you for underrating them. He says that if you're going to buff a power, then you need to nerf one gun to compensate. I think that's exactly what SHOULD happen. All human soldiers have that power, not all human soldiers will bring that gun with them. Sounds very reasonable to me.

You've missed the point, which is that if you want to claim that the Human Soldier is underpowered then you need to simultaneously claim that the Striker is overpowered.  Which hasn't happened yet in this thread, to my knowledge.

Even so, I'd argue that both the Striker and the Human Soldier are fine.

Modifié par Father Alvito, 17 avril 2012 - 09:30 .

[Biotic_Warlock]

Malanek999 wrote...

I think the thing that needs nerfing the most is Throw.

Never! You won't take me alive!

[InstaShark]

Malanek999 wrote...

I think the thing that needs nerfing the most is Throw.

Throw is fine where it is, if you ask me.

[Father Alvito]

InstaShark wrote...

Father Alvito wrote...

It isn't off-topic and I maintain that you're either too stupid or too uncurious to see why.

To help you out a bit: we're talking [about] balance, and the definition of what requires balance matters.

Fixed it.

How about you just talk about what should be balanced, then, instead of trying to argue on the definition?

You want an opinion, then? Fine.

Fix the armor reduction mechanic so that it deducts a percentage of the weapon's damage, with a maximum deduction up to present caps. Then let's talk about what's balanced and what's not.

What you seem to be missing in all of this is that the definition of 'balanced' has a lot to do with various players' opinions on how the game should be rebalanced. This is a problem. Sorting out the definition of 'balance' would resolve many disagreements on this forum.

[Poekel]

a) Does keeping pace imply that you're good and that the people you're playing with are bad, or that the class is underpowered?  You state that AR needs work.  This implies the latter, not the former.  Why claim that your first paragraph was your 'true' claim when the second undermines the claim?
.

Damage wise AR and TC arent that much away. Given the fact that AR allows for more shots to be fired with bonus theoretically should even them out a bit. The problem is that TC is pretty much broken and probably not working as intended:
- 1 skill can be used without the appropriate evolution. Can't do that with AR. Marksman even does not allow to use any skill.
- Weight is no issue when using TC. Just fire a shot/skill and the CD will be low even when running with -200%.

If these issues would be fixed, TC would be much more in line and still have the effect of added security (easier to snipe when cloaked) and giving a massive damage boost to sniper rifles (+40% on the base weapon damage; now imagine AR and Marksman giving 40% on Assault Rifle base weapon damage).

[bd2eazy]

i dont understand how yall can seriously want nerfs when there are so many guns/skills that need buffs. Im not saying make everything 1337 but there are alot of things that NOONE would even THINK about using. This is especially true when u go into Gold territory.

[InstaShark]

Father Alvito wrote...

You want an opinion, then? Fine.

Fix the armor reduction mechanic so that it deducts a percentage of the weapon's damage, with a maximum deduction up to present caps. Then let's talk about what's balanced and what's not.

What you seem to be missing in all of this is that the definition of 'balanced' has a lot to do with various players' opinions on how the game should be rebalanced. This is a problem. Sorting out the definition of 'balance' would resolve many disagreements on this forum.

Actually, the change in the armor's DR mechanic sounds reasonable. But if that's the case, then certain weapons should have certain reduction rates (not some flat rate crap like they're doing now). That would make ARs more useful against armor, I think.

Everybody's definition of balance is going to be different, of course, but I'm not entirely sure if that's something that should be discussed in a thread that asks what should will be nerfed (though people still say "no nerfs, buff this").

Modifié par InstaShark, 17 avril 2012 - 09:42 .

[Father Alvito]

Poekel wrote...

Damage wise AR and TC arent that much away. Given the fact that AR allows for more shots to be fired with bonus theoretically should even them out a bit. The problem is that TC is pretty much broken and probably not working as intended:
- 1 skill can be used without the appropriate evolution. Can't do that with AR. Marksman even does not allow to use any skill.
- Weight is no issue when using TC. Just fire a shot/skill and the CD will be low even when running with -200%.

If these issues would be fixed, TC would be much more in line and still have the effect of added security (easier to snipe when cloaked) and giving a massive damage boost to sniper rifles (+40% on the base weapon damage; now imagine AR and Marksman giving 40% on Assault Rifle base weapon damage).

I'm missing the argument here.  AFAIK, if you spam a Striker your Cloak wears out after a few shots and you cease to gain the TC damage bonus.  Ditto the other weapons (such as Saber) that shine in the Human Soldier's hands.

I won't disagree with the thesis that TC is overpowered when combined with a multi-shot sniper rifle such as the Black Widow or Valiant where multiple shots get the TC bonus, or the argument that you should always take an Infiltrator if you're thinking about taking a Valiant/BW as things stand.

[Father Alvito]

InstaShark wrote...

Everybody's definition of balance is going to be different, of course, but I'm not entirely sure if that's something that should be discussed in a thread that asks what should be nerfed (though people still say "no nerfs, buff this").

The definition is vital because we're all going to talk past one another re: nerfs/buffs until we can agree upon that definition.

It also follows that the devs will please some people and displease others unless they can identify a definition and convince the player base that the definition is appropriate.

[GodlessPaladin]

Guns in general just aren't so hot, and nerfing weapons like the Falcon nerfs weapon-reliant classes (and the soldier isn't exactly wrecking up the place). I think a better approach would be to buff underperforming weapons (especially assault rifles), since this would also help with the soldier issue.

More than that, though, I really want bug fixes. I want incendiary grenades to be able to damage Guardians properly. I want Krogan Vanguards to receive damage bonuses from rage. I want ultralight materials to DO SOMETHING and not just for one gun.  I want ballistic blades to not get stopped by invisible walls.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 17 avril 2012 - 09:47 .

[InstaShark]

Father Alvito wrote...

InstaShark wrote...

Everybody's definition of balance is going to be different, of course, but I'm not entirely sure if that's something that should be discussed in a thread that asks what should be nerfed (though people still say "no nerfs, buff this").

The definition is vital because we're all going to talk past one another re: nerfs/buffs until we can agree upon that definition.

It also follows that the devs will please some people and displease others unless they can identify a definition and convince the player base that the definition is appropriate.

Not even the devs know what the definition of "balanced" is, though, IMO.