74 réponses à ce sujet

[PROTOTYPE_ZERO]

Playing a Sentinel, want something for long range. I noticed that Paladin hits just as hard as Valiant but has half the weight.. seems to me that the Valiant is completely useless as it's best suited for a Infiltrator with Cloak but even then the Black Widow outshines. Bit of a shame as the Valiant kicks ass in MP..

[Dapper Chimp]

I use the Paladin on my soldier builds and I'll attest to it being a powerhouse. Not sure I'd want to use it for anything more than medium range though.

[JaegerBane]

The paladin actually does more damage than the Valiant per shot. The biggest advantage the Valiant has over the Paladin is its lack of recoil - getting three headshots in a row is a lot easier with the Valiant. Sniper rifle mods are also a little more useful than Pistol mods - particularly the ability to have two damage booster mods (plus slowdown) at once on an SR, vs the one available for pistols (which you're unlikely to be using on the Paladin anyway, as the clip and scope mods are really required to make it a true sniping rival). This makes the difference in damage very minor (though still in favour of the Paladin).

But realistically, having up to twice the clip capacity with the same rate of fire and slightly more damage generally makes the Paladin the superior long range weapon of the two.

And people say the Paladin isn't worth the price.... yeesh.

Dunno why Shep didn't just save up 400,000 credit, bought two and bolted them to the front of the Normandy. Every engagement would have been *drops out of FTL, BANG BANG BANG, print another little kill marking on the Normandy, jumps back to FTL*

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 avril 2012 - 05:23 .

[Kronner]

JaegerBane wrote...

And people say the Paladin isn't worth the price.... yeesh.

Carnifex is just as good, but free of charge. Though you get it quite late in the game as far as I know. That said, Paladin is still worth the price since credits are not an issue in SP.

Valiant is better at taking down trash enemies and it gives you better zoom feature. Weight bonus is overrated.

Modifié par Kronner, 30 avril 2012 - 05:31 .

[greghorvath]

PROTOTYPE_ZERO wrote...

Playing a Sentinel, want something for long range. I noticed that Paladin hits just as hard as Valiant but has half the weight.. seems to me that the Valiant is completely useless as it's best suited for a Infiltrator with Cloak but even then the Black Widow outshines. Bit of a shame as the Valiant kicks ass in MP..

Valiant is actually great for sniper infiltrator. However, the best sniper rifle for me in SP was the Saber with a scope mod.

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...
Carnifex is just as good, but free of charge. Though you get it quite late in the game as far as I know. That said, Paladin is still worth the price since credits are not an issue in SP.

It's probably better suited to being an all-round weapon by virtue of its larger spare ammo capacity, but really, its damage is noticeably less. I mean, the Paladin I does more damage than the Carnifex X. As you say, cash is neither that difficult to come by nor are there many things to actually spend money on.

Valiant is better at taking down trash enemies and it gives you better zoom feature. Weight bonus is overrated.

I agree with the assertion about what its good at... but I'd disagree with the mention of weight bonus. A weight bonus is the difference between a character that is a challenge to play, and a character that steamrollers all comers, weapons or no weapons.

That said, I could care less about weight mechanic. I modded it out.... Adept with Particle Rifle/Hurricane/Paladin/Scimitar/Black Widow and ~2 sec cooldowns FTW 

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 avril 2012 - 06:25 .

[Kronner]

JaegerBane wrote...
It's probably better suited to being an all-round weapon by virtue of its larger spare ammo capacity, but really, its damage is noticeably less. I mean, the Paladin I does more damage than the Carnifex X. As you say, cash is neither that difficult to come by nor are there many things to actually spend money on.

 

Less damage does not matter. Carnifex headshot = trooper dead. Paladin will not one shot shielded enemies anyway.

I agree with the assertion about what its good at... but I'd disagree with the mention of weight bonus. A weight bonus is the difference between a character that is a challenge to play, and a character that steamrollers all comers, weapons or no weapons.

 

I just meant that it is not that important to have +200% CD bonus. The difference between that and let's say +150% is pretty small.

Modifié par Kronner, 30 avril 2012 - 06:14 .

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
It's probably better suited to being an all-round weapon by virtue of its larger spare ammo capacity, but really, its damage is noticeably less. I mean, the Paladin I does more damage than the Carnifex X. As you say, cash is neither that difficult to come by nor are there many things to actually spend money on.

 

Less damage does not matter. Carnifex headshot = trooper dead. Paladin will not one shot shielded enemies anyway.

If you're going for headshots then there's no point bothering with the carnifex, its only advantages are its increased ammo supply. All you're doing there is narrowing the margin of error against basic enemies and making it harder to take on bigger enemies. It's not really anything to do with one-shotting.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 avril 2012 - 06:22 .

[Dapper Chimp]

Kronner wrote...
Carnifex is just as good, but free of charge. Though you get it quite late in the game as far as I know. That said, Paladin is still worth the price since credits are not an issue in SP.
...
Less damage does not matter. Carnifex headshot = trooper dead. Paladin will not one shot shielded enemies anyway.

Carnifex X DPS =  575.17 
Paladin X DPS = 885.17

...and wrong tool for the wrong job. Since ME2 the rule of thumb is that you want lower damage/higher RoF weapons of shields and vice versa for armor. Pistols are for armored or stripped opponents at close-to-medium range.

Modifié par Dapper Chimp, 30 avril 2012 - 06:28 .

[Kronner]

JaegerBane wrote...

If you're going for headshots then there's no point bothering with the carnifex, its only advantages are its increased ammo supply. All you're doing there is narrowing the margin of error against basic enemies and making it harder to take on bigger enemies. It's not really anything to do with one-shotting.

It's actually very important (one shot kills). If you don''t kill it in one shot, you are just wasting time with that pistol.

Bigger enemies are scarce in the SP campaign.

Just to be clear..I do agree that Paladin is better, but not by much. I don't like either weapon anyway.

Dapper Chimp wrote...

Carnifex X DPS =  575.17 
Paladin X DPS = 885.17

...and wrong tool for the wrong job. Since ME2 the rule of thumb is that you want lower damage/higher RoF weapons of shields and vice versa for armor. Pistols are for armored or stripped opponents at close-to-medium range.

 

How about you put it into context. Paper DPS are just that...paper DPS.
In the actual game, the extra damage Paladin does is not beneficial in most cases (assuming you are a good shot). And thanks to smaller clip, Paladin is actually more punishing if you miss. 

And in ME3 enemy defenses are all the same. Shields or armor, no weapon has extra damage multiplier against it.

Modifié par Kronner, 30 avril 2012 - 06:39 .

[Dapper Chimp]

Kronner wrote...

Dapper Chimp wrote...

Carnifex X DPS =  575.17 
Paladin X DPS = 885.17

...and wrong tool for the wrong job. Since ME2 the rule of thumb is that you want lower damage/higher RoF weapons of shields and vice versa for armor. Pistols are for armored or stripped opponents at close-to-medium range.

 

How about you put it into context. Paper DPS are just that...paper DPS.
In the actual game, the extra damage Paladin does is not beneficial in most cases (assuming you are a good shot). And thanks to smaller clip, Paladin is actually more punishing if you miss. 

And in ME3 enemy defenses are all the same. Shields or armor, no weapon has extra damage multiplier against it.

Against stripped targets, you are probably right. However against armored targets, you are unequivocally wrong. I'm not sure which of these you want to operationally define as "most cases". I stand by my argument that you use the right tool for the right job and then judge your results accordingly.

You are partially correct on your second point as well. Yes, with a smaller clip, a miss is more significant. Again, this is why you don't use a medium-to-short range weapon (like a pistol) for long range engagement (the purview of weapons that typically have the work "rifle" somewhere in their name). To my point, this is why you use the tool at it was intended; to get desired results. 

Lastly, yes, I'm aware that the various weapons do not have bonuses against protection types. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with that. Loading screens still recommend lower damage/higher RoF weapons against barriers and shields and vice versa for armor. That's game mechanics,  which has nothing to do with bonus multipliers.

[Kronner]

Dapper Chimp wrote...
Against stripped targets, you are probably right. However against armored targets, you are unequivocally wrong. I'm not sure which of these you want to operationally define as "most cases". I stand by my argument that you use the right tool for the right job and then judge your results accordingly.

 

Most cases as in there are not too many heavy targets in the SP campaign. What 5 Atlases? Few Primes and some Banshees. That's it. Against most enemies (1shot or 2shot kills) the extra Paladin damage is redundant as long as you can headshot.

Dapper Chimp wrote...  
You are partially correct on your second point as well. Yes, with a smaller clip, a miss is more significant. Again, this is why you don't use a medium-to-short range weapon (like a pistol) for long range engagement (the purview of weapons that typically have the work "rifle" somewhere in their name). To my point, this is why you use the tool at it was intended; to get desired results. 

 

Miss is a miss. The range is not relevant as you are comparing two weapons in the same weapon class.

And a scoped Pistol is extremely good at long range so if the player wants to, it works.

Dapper Chimp wrote... 
Lastly, yes, I'm aware that the various weapons do not have bonuses against protection types. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with that. Loading screens still recommend lower damage/higher RoF weapons against barriers and shields and vice versa for armor. That's game mechanics,  which has nothing to do with bonus multipliers.

This makes no sense. If there's no bonus, what game mechanics are you talking about? Why would I bother switching weapons? Most of the low damage/high RoF weapons suck.

Modifié par Kronner, 30 avril 2012 - 07:16 .

[capn233]

I say Paladin is not worth the credits. Mainly for the reasons Kronner has already stated. If you don't want to spend your credits on something else, like the Black Widow, then go ahead and buy it. Carnifex and a bunch of Koi fish and Citadel models is a pretty good combination that I like to run.  But if you want it and have the money buy it.

And stop with DPS please. DPS is a near useless statistic. Maybe if the game was such that when a mission started you held the trigger and all the enemies would melt from "DPS" it would matter. Does that sound like the game? Damage is quantized, and enemy health is discreet.  The ME3 I play has mostly low tiered units with a few big enemies thrown in. And those are taken down faster with powers... so much faster as to make the mild difference in damage between Paladin and Carnifex near moot.

Modifié par capn233, 30 avril 2012 - 07:30 .

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...

If you're going for headshots then there's no point bothering with the carnifex, its only advantages are its increased ammo supply. All you're doing there is narrowing the margin of error against basic enemies and making it harder to take on bigger enemies. It's not really anything to do with one-shotting.

It's actually very important (one shot kills). If you don''t kill it in one shot, you are just wasting time with that pistol.

Kronner, it sounds like you're arguing two things at once here. One minute you're saying figures and DPS are artificial and shouldn't be considered, and the next you're advocating the totally artificial situation that the player will always get headshots.

Sure, if you're always going to get headshots, then yeah, the extra damage is redundant. But you're not always going to get headshots - sometimes you'll miss, sometimes you'll have to take extra time to aim, sometimes headshotting is overkill. its no more realistic to expect this than to expect DPS to totally reflect a weapons performance. You can't sit on both fences at once.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 avril 2012 - 07:45 .

[Dapper Chimp]

Kronner wrote...

Dapper Chimp wrote...
Against stripped targets, you are probably right. However against armored targets, you are unequivocally wrong. I'm not sure which of these you want to operationally define as "most cases". I stand by my argument that you use the right tool for the right job and then judge your results accordingly.

 

Most cases as in there are not too many heavy targets in the SP campaign. What 5 Atlases? Few Primes and some Banshees. That's it. Against most enemies (1shot or 2shot kills) the extra Paladin damage is redundant as long as you can headshot.

  Don't forget Ravagers and Brutes. What do all these things have in common? They're typically used a boss encounters. 

So you're absolutely right; a weapon that's extremely effective against boss encounters is worthless because boss encounters are rare. 

I think you and I will be done after this post. You're more than welcome to have the last word.

Kronner wrote... 

Dapper Chimp wrote...  
You are partially correct on your second point as well. Yes, with a smaller clip, a miss is more significant. Again, this is why you don't use a medium-to-short range weapon (like a pistol) for long range engagement (the purview of weapons that typically have the work "rifle" somewhere in their name). To my point, this is why you use the tool at it was intended; to get desired results. 

 

Miss is a miss. The range is not relevant as you are comparing two weapons in the same weapon class.

And a scoped Pistol is extremely good at long range so if the player wants to, it works.

  A miss is a miss, but a miss is less likely if you're using the weapon within it's intended range. 

I'm assuming that scope works on the Paladin as well? Since this my last response to you, please allow me to anticipate your response; yes, I'm aware that it does and that a head shot with the Carnifex will one-shot mooks just as well as the Paladin. To which I would point out, once again, that it's obviously not intended for mooks. Right tool for the right job. Again.

Kronner wrote...  

Dapper Chimp wrote... 
Lastly, yes, I'm aware that the various weapons do not have bonuses against protection types. What I said has absolutely nothing to do with that. Loading screens still recommend lower damage/higher RoF weapons against barriers and shields and vice versa for armor. That's game mechanics,  which has nothing to do with bonus multipliers.

This makes no sense. If there's no bonus, what game mechanics are you talking about? Why would I bother switching weapons? Most of the low damage/high RoF weapons suck.

I'msorry, are you now arguing that there are bonuses after arguing that there aren't? 

Hopefully this example helps to clarify:

Submachine guns in ME2 and ME3 - Great against shields. Not so much against armor.
Submachine guns in ME2 only - 
Great against shields + inherent weapon multipliers + upgrades. Not so much against armor unless you have one that has a decent inherent weapon multipliers (i.e. the Kassa Locust).

If you disagree, pay closer attention to the loading screens and/or try to answer your own question about the value in changing weapons.  Clearly they gave us options for a reason. If pistol = submachine gun because damage = damage, then why give squadmates multiple weapons?

@OP - yes, they both do similar damage, however each has a different effective range. I recommend using the sniper rifle for distance and the pistol for close encounters. Both are going to be good against armored bad guys, but I can tell you from experience that you're going to have better luck with the Paladin against Brutes and Banshees.

@ JaegerBane - Obviously, he's either not aware of or not considering gating in ME3. You can only one-shot baddies that either aren't protect and/or on lower difficulties. On higher difficulties or against protected enemies, you can't one-shot and having a weapon that is brutal against armor is incredibly helpful. This fact is easy to ignore in fantasyland where no one has protection and can't be easily head-shot.

Modifié par Dapper Chimp, 30 avril 2012 - 07:53 .

[JaegerBane]

Dapper Chimp wrote...

@ JaegerBane - Obviously, he's either not aware of or not considering gating in ME3. You can only one-shot baddies that either aren't protect and/or on lower difficulties. On higher difficulties or against protected enemies, you can't one-shot and having a weapon that is brutal against armor is incredibly helpful. This fact is easy to ignore in fantasyland where no one has protection and can't be easily head-shot.

Agreed. I actually have no problem with people questioning the value of DPS as it is largely a theoretical stat that needs the context of gameplay to make sense of.

I only have a problem when people discount it for being largely theoretical, but then use something equally theoretical in their own argument. You don't avoid cheeseburgers because they contain meat and then eat a hotdog instead.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 30 avril 2012 - 07:59 .

[Kronner]

JaegerBane wrote...

Kronner, it sounds like you're arguing two things at once here. One minute you're saying figures and DPS are artificial and shouldn't be considered, and the next you're advocating the totally artificial situation that the player will always get headshots.

Sure, if you're always going to get headshots, then yeah, the extra damage is redundant. But you're not always going to get headshots - sometimes you'll miss, sometimes you'll have to take extra time to aim, sometimes headshotting is overkill. its no more realistic to expect this than to expect DPS to totally reflect a weapons performance. You can't sit on both fences at once.

No, what I am saying is this: Paladin is better than Carnifex. But not by much. Why? Because majority of your Paladin shots will come with extra damage that is not needed to kill the enemy. This is like Valiant vs. Black Widow. 

Dapper Chimp wrote...

Don't forget Ravagers and Brutes. What do all these things have in common? They're typically used a boss encounters. 

So you're absolutely right; a weapon that's extremely effective against boss encounters is worthless because boss encounters are rare. 

I think you and I will be done after this post. You're more than welcome to have the last word. 

  

Ravagers and Brutes are not heavy targets. They do not have enough armor points. Not sure why you are so offended by my opinions/experiences though.

Dapper Chimp wrote...  
 A miss is a miss, but a miss is less likely if you're using the weapon within it's intended range. 

I'm assuming that scope works on the Paladin as well? Since this my last response to you, please allow me to anticipate your response; yes, I'm aware that it does and that a head shot with the Carnifex will one-shot mooks just as well as the Paladin. To which I would point out, once again, that it's obviously not intended for mooks. Right tool for the right job. Again.  

   

Not sure you understand my point. Since you are comparing two pistols, range is not relevant as both of them are equally good or bad at all possible ranges. I am not saying Pistols should be used at long range, only that it is possible.

I agree that Paladin > Carnifex at everything but clip size. But that is still worth considering. Just my opinion though.

Dapper Chimp wrote... 
Hopefully this example helps to clarify:

Submachine guns in ME2 and ME3 - Great against shields. Not so much against armor.
Submachine guns in ME2 only - 
Great against shields + inherent weapon multipliers + upgrades. Not so much against armor unless you have one that has a decent inherent weapon multipliers (i.e. the Kassa Locust).

If you disagree, pay closer attention to the loading screens and/or try to answer your own question about the value in changing weapons.  Clearly they gave us options for a reason. If pistol = submachine gun because damage = damage, then why give squadmates multiple weapons? 

 

No idea. Maybe they had a mechanic similar to ME2 in the works, but then cancelled it. In any case, there is no benefit in using SMG over Pistol against a shielded enemy. 

Dapper Chimp wrote...  
@ JaegerBane - Obviously, he's either not aware of or not considering gating in ME3. You can only one-shot baddies that either aren't protect and/or on lower difficulties. On higher difficulties or against protected enemies, you can't one-shot and having a weapon that is brutal against armor is incredibly helpful. This fact is easy to ignore in fantasyland where no one has protection and can't be easily head-shot.

 

Not sure if you mean me, but:
I am well aware of shield gating. That's why I mentioned 1shot or 2shot kills (non-shielded or shielded enemy).
And I do agree that weapons that destroy armor are incredibly useful. I am quite disappointed that there are not many heavy targets in the SP campaign though.

Modifié par Kronner, 30 avril 2012 - 08:11 .

[capn233]

You don't do DPS though, you do quantized damage.

Sure, the higher the health on an enemy the closer DPS is to making a useful prediction. But for most enemies in the game it is pointless, except for comparing very low damage per shot weapons. I think that was in fact what Kronner was getting at.

On the large targets, shots to kill an Atlas with Carnifex vs Paladin is again not a useful metric because either way it takes much longer than it would using your squad and powers effectively.

edit...

Looks like Kronner already made a post while I was making this little one.

Modifié par capn233, 30 avril 2012 - 08:12 .

[Kronner]

capn233 wrote...

You don't do DPS though, you do quantized damage.

Sure, the higher the health on an enemy the closer DPS is to making a useful prediction. But for most enemies in the game it is pointless, except for comparing very low damage per shot weapons. I think that was in fact what Kronner was getting at.

On the large targets, shots to kill an Atlas with Carnifex vs Paladin is again not a useful metric because either way it takes much longer than it would using your squad and powers effectively.

Yes, pretty much this.

[Dapper Chimp]

capn233 wrote...

You don't do DPS though, you do quantized damage.

Sure, the higher the health on an enemy the closer DPS is to making a useful prediction. But for most enemies in the game it is pointless, except for comparing very low damage per shot weapons. I think that was in fact what Kronner was getting at.

On the large targets, shots to kill an Atlas with Carnifex vs Paladin is again not a useful metric because either way it takes much longer than it would using your squad and powers effectively.

edit...

Looks like Kronner already made a post while I was making this little one.

Let me attempt to boil down the argument another way.

If I am facing down a Brute and I have a choice of two pistols, do I take the Carnifex or do I take the Paladin? My argument is that I take the Paladin because it does significantly more damage. 

Kronner's argument is that I should take the Carnifex because it's free and I can one-shot the Brute in the head. Kronner's point ignores the fact that you can't one-shot an enemy with protection.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that damage is "quantized', but I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that DPS only tells us how much damage is being done against unprotected enemies. I think you might be pointing out that damage vs armor, for example, is DPS-X% vs Armor, which is fine, but my my point is that DPS number is still important.

[Kronner]

Dapper Chimp wrote...

Kronner's argument is that I should take the Carnifex because it's free and I can one-shot the Brute in the head. Kronner's point ignores the fact that you can't one-shot an enemy with protection.

I never said this.

I did say you can one shot trash enemies (i.e. not shielded enemies). Not Brutes. 

I also did say Paladin is better than Carnifex against targets that can't be 1shot or 2shot killed.

The fact that you do not understand this is your own problem.

Modifié par Kronner, 30 avril 2012 - 08:49 .

[Aurica]

I find it much simpler and faster to take down boss-like targets with powers than say a big-ass gun with super high dps but extremely limited no. of shots per clip. 

Or maybe its just me :\\

Modifié par Aurica, 30 avril 2012 - 08:37 .

[Dapper Chimp]

Depends on what class you're playing. If you hate playing a soldier and just want to kill stuff with powers, then yeah.

Not every class has access to variety of powers and not every build allows you to spam them. At some point, the gun becomes something other than a decoration.

@ Kronner - "How about you put it into context. Paper DPS are just that...paper DPS.In the actual game, the extra damage Paladin does is not beneficial in most cases (assuming you are a good shot)."

Followed by several more posts that ignored specific examples that I provided. And a post that flip-flopped on whether or not weapons had damage bonuses. And another that speculates that multiple weapons is cut-content that somehow shipped with the finished game.

Modifié par Dapper Chimp, 30 avril 2012 - 09:00 .

[JaegerBane]

Kronner wrote...
No, what I am saying is this: Paladin is better than Carnifex. But not by much. Why? Because majority of your Paladin shots will come with extra damage that is not needed to kill the enemy. This is like Valiant vs. Black Widow. 

I actually agree with this, I just didn't understand how you were justifying ignoring DPS but basing the argument on just getting headshots. You're right in that if you're purely going for headshots then the extra damage will be redundant, but going for headshots is not something that is realistically going to happen all the time. In that situation, extra damage that you can use if need be is a lot more useful than having more rounds, unless you;re using it all the time.

But yeah, The Paladin isn't that far ahead of the Carnifex. It's just 200k doesn't mean much so you might as well bite the bullet (no pun intended ).

[Athenau]

Yeah, the Carnifex is maybe 90-95% as good as the Paladin. But unless you want to invest your creds in the 1st Imaginary Bank of Mass Effect you might as well squeeze out that last 5%.