130 réponses à ce sujet

[StarcloudSWG]

I disagree, again. Damage should not suffer with range. The projectiles don't suddenly lose their velocity just because they're x meters away from the muzzle. This is what bugs me the most about shotguns; the 'pellet cloud' doesn't slow down or spread nearly as much as games would have you believe, they're longer ranged than you'd think.

I can see a tweak to accuracy for heavy pistols like the Carnifex and Paladin, giving them less accuracy.

[capn233]

Projectiles lose energy from the moment they leave the barrel. Just look at any ballistics table. If you think the railguns of the future would be different you are mistaken. That is, except in a vacuum. Yes a stairstep down in damage would not occur necessarily, but they would do less damage. Don't worry, this mechanic will never be implemented, but it is "realistic."

As for shotguns, yes they are caricatures somewhat. But shot does not fly as efficiently or as accurately as a bullet. They loose energy faster than bullets. There is some "range compression" that occurs in this game and that is why the spread is a little bigger than it should be, but I can potentially kill units from a decent distance with the Claymore if I have a good enough level Smart Choke.

Then again, it isn't as if whacky effects are limited to shotguns. Many of the assault rifles suffer from ridiculously poor accuracy and low damage. The Revenant must have some projectiles leave at 30* from the bore line in order to have as poor of accuracy as it does.

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...

Most do fire projectiles though, which is pretty similar to our ballistic weapons today.

I don't know that pure analogues to each caliber is necessarily what people want, even if some people start posting analogies. They just want a system that seems logical and balanced.

We'll just ignore modern day analogues and focus on a theoretical future. In that future, why would anyone bother to produce larger heavier weapons that presumably have more cost, when a compact handheld weapon does the job equally well? It doesn't make sense that anyone would procure any other weapon in that setting. Why would they bother developing the Valiant, for instance, when the Paladin seems to do the same job?

This goes back to the point I made about some weapons being filler, then. I would imagine that the straightforward answer to your question is that they would bother to manufacture heavier weapons for the same reasons as to why there are such a plethora of calibres and firearm models today - cost, laws, economics, competition, any and all of the above. Weapons are not simply constructed to use the very best materials and provide the very best performance now, so I'm not sure I see the rationale behind that happening in ME.

As someone has already mentioned, the reason some pistols have become branded as 'baby sniper rifles' is simply down to their stopping power. Contrary to what is constantly being put forward, the Carnifex and Paladin don't outperform all sniper rifles. They outperform some, yes, which is no different to comparing the stopping power of a modern-day Mk23 vs some .22 carbine. But, in the case of your example of the Valiant, when you factor in accuracy, range, slow-down, damage boosts, built-in mods etc, they really aren't optimal sniping tools, they simply can be pressed into service as a makeshift sniper weapon. That isn't a good enough reason to start fiddling with stats to make 22nd century state-of-the-art pistols 'behave like pistols', whatever that means.

The Carnifex and the Paladin, currently totally outperform the Viper, which clearly isn't a good idea. However, I would suggest, rather than get nerf-happy out of some misguided and pointless desire to 'balance' the SP arsenal, that the underperforming weapons are made to perform like they're supposed to. I.e, the Viper doing enough damage to justify itself. Lets not start trying to bring things down to the lowest common denominator - the weapons in this game as a whole lag behind powers as it is.

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...

Projectiles lose energy from the moment they leave the barrel. Just look at any ballistics table. If you think the railguns of the future would be different you are mistaken. .

I think the point being made is that a round exiting the barrel in excess of Mach 10 (or thereabouts) is not going to lose any significant kinetic energy over anything less than several hundred metres. Hence the idea that hypervelocity pellets would do 25% more damage if they impact at 4 metres instead of 10 like it was in ME2 had nothing to do with reality, it was an element of balance, nothing else.

Personally, I don't support range modifiers either... as least not the shotgun ones from ME2. As with many of the other criticisms being levelled against the balance of ME weapons, it seems to be rooted in an unconscious expectation of certain players that weapons that function on totally different principles and technology should exhibit the same behaviour as conventional firearms. That just isn't sensible. I'm all for balance, but stuff based real life ballistics is meaningless. Hell, even games that actually depict real life firearms take some major artistic license, so the idea a game set in the 22nd century should stick to them is downright ridiculous. Its like saying Phaser Rifles and Death Rays don't exhibit enough real-life ballistic behaviour.

capn233 wrote...
Then again, it isn't as if whacky effects are
limited to shotguns. Many of the assault rifles suffer from
ridiculously poor accuracy and low damage. The Revenant must have some
projectiles leave at 30* from the bore line in order to have as poor of
accuracy as it does.

True, but I've yet to see anything approach the hilarity of Doom 3's venerable shotgun. That thing behaved like a damn sawn-off.... and it was supposedly standard-issue

Modifié par JaegerBane, 09 mai 2012 - 04:59 .

[JaegerBane]

IamDanThaMan wrote...

Well, in this theoretical future, weapons with longer barrels would still be more stable than a handgun and would presumably be able to hold a larger eezo core for more power. So in theoretical real life, the Paladin would not be able to snipe people as reliably from long distances as the Valiant, unlike in a video game, where you can hold any gun perfectly still while aiming.

If this is indeed the issue that is at the core of the whole scope issue, I have a suggestion - cap the range. Justify it on the basis that the ME field breaks down after a while. The Particle Rifle has it, and it works well.

Hell, Deus Ex: Human Revolution did this, with pistols and shotguns having the shortest range, followed by rifles and capping out at sniper rifles with the maximum. You even had laser sights to denote their range.

And, amusingly, that game also had pistols that were extremely powerful.

[capn233]

JaegerBane wrote...

This goes back to the point I made about some weapons being filler, then. I would imagine that the straightforward answer to your question is that they would bother to manufacture heavier weapons for the same reasons as to why there are such a plethora of calibres and firearm models today - cost, laws, economics, competition, any and all of the above. Weapons are not simply constructed to use the very best materials and provide the very best performance now, so I'm not sure I see the rationale behind that happening in ME.

It isn't exactly the same point.  The issue is that relatively speaking the pistol class is outside the bounds of logic.  And as for calibers, there isn't really a plethora of calibers that are actually used by militaries, especially in small arms.

The whole point is that they wouldn't bother developing the Valiant if you can have a hand sized weapon with more damage, more capacity, and essentially the same accuracy.  The only thing the Valiant has going for it is rate of fire.

As someone has already mentioned, the reason some pistols have become branded as 'baby sniper rifles' is simply down to their stopping power. Contrary to what is constantly being put forward, the Carnifex and Paladin don't outperform all sniper rifles. They outperform some, yes, which is no different to comparing the stopping power of a modern-day Mk23 vs some .22 carbine. But, in the case of your example of the Valiant, when you factor in accuracy, range, slow-down, damage boosts, built-in mods etc, they really aren't optimal sniping tools, they simply can be pressed into service as a makeshift sniper weapon. That isn't a good enough reason to start fiddling with stats to make 22nd century state-of-the-art pistols 'behave like pistols', whatever that means.

Ignoring the term stopping power, I don't understand the analogy.  Consider that the USP Mk23 in .45 ACP was developed for special forces and that no military is using a .22LR for combat.  .22LR is for varmint shooting.  Granted, you can kill a person with .22LR.  I would challenge you to find any standard issue assault rifle round (which aren't even full power rifle cartridges) for the various militaries that only has around 600J of muzzle energy though.  So I don't see the relevance, unless you want to claim that half of the sniper rifle class are really for shooting space squirrels or other small game and are not military weapons.  If we extend the analogy to the often maligned 5.56mm carbine (which is sort of 22 caliber) then even so we are talking about a difference in energy of 1000J in favor of the carbine, nearly 3x the energy of .45 ACP.

And since we want to make analogies, if you try to stratify the sniper rifles with analogies to current calibers, then the top tier pistols are idiotically powerful.  Carnifex and Paladin have more power than .500 SW Magnum or .454 Casull.  The Phalanx would be .44 magnum for God's sake.  Even the Predator is more powerful than a  .357 Magnum relative to the Widow.  How does that make sense?

The Carnifex and the Paladin, currently totally outperform the Viper, which clearly isn't a good idea. However, I would suggest, rather than get nerf-happy out of some misguided and pointless desire to 'balance' the SP arsenal, that the underperforming weapons are made to perform like they're supposed to. I.e, the Viper doing enough damage to justify itself. Lets not start trying to bring things down to the lowest common denominator - the weapons in this game as a whole lag behind powers as it is.

The issue is that if we increased the damage on most of the weapons that should be outperforming pistols the game would be even more easy than it is already, and that is in fact a bad thing.  This isn't misguided at all.  But yes, ideally powers need to be readjusted... but fixing the weight vs damage output of the weapons would go a way towards fixing that, as you wouldn't have the win button power class setups with magic pistols.

Modifié par capn233, 09 mai 2012 - 07:01 .

[StarcloudSWG]

capn233 wrote...

Projectiles lose energy from the moment they leave the barrel. Just look at any ballistics table. If you think the railguns of the future would be different you are mistaken. That is, except in a vacuum. Yes a stairstep down in damage would not occur necessarily, but they would do less damage. Don't worry, this mechanic will never be implemented, but it is "realistic."

As for shotguns, yes they are caricatures somewhat. But shot does not fly as efficiently or as accurately as a bullet. They loose energy faster than bullets. There is some "range compression" that occurs in this game and that is why the spread is a little bigger than it should be, but I can potentially kill units from a decent distance with the Claymore if I have a good enough level Smart Choke.

I'm not taking issue with the velocity loss issue. I'm saying that velocity loss as a justification for reduced damage is pretty damn stupid over the short ranges available in the game. A .30-06 bullet loses velocity the moment it exits the barrel, but it's still lethal at a mile distance. There've been news stories this year about that.

The thing is, the weapons aren't designed and optimized just for the small, relatively cramped maps and short engagement ranges we see in the game. They're designed around what their 'role' is, and we don't get to see a difference between a heavy pistol and a sniper rifle at 20 or 30 yards. There should've been much larger, more open maps where the differences would've been pronounced, with enemies coming in from long distances and not just being dropped right on top of the player.

Shot does not actually lose velocity faster than a bullets does. What's going on there is a combination of factors; the wide barrel, the weight of the shot, and the marginally slower burn of the gunpowder used in shotgun shells means that there's less energy imparted per pellet. For comparison: each pellet of 00 buck is exactly the same diameter as a 9mm bullet, but the muzzle velocity of a shotgun is lower than the muzzle velocity of a 9 mil pistol. Also, shotguns aren't accurate because there's nothing stabilizing the pellets; bullets are accurate because of the spin imparted by the rifling of the barrel.

Slower powder burn is not an issue with mass effect weapons. Stabilization apparently is an issue with many mass effect weapons, particularly those designed for high rates of fire.

Scopes should not be removed from other weapon categories. The first 'sniper rifles' were simply battle rifles (that every infantryman had) equipped with a scope instead of just iron sights. Even now, you'll find some soldiers carrying scoped versions of the standard battle rifle.

Accuracy could be reduced for some heavy pistols. This adjusts the 'capability overlap' some posters are hyper-concerned about, reducing the likelihood of it happening so that they can see different weapons being used in multiplayer.

Want to see fewer adepts sniping stasis+carnifex+headshot? Remove the Adept 6th tier weight reduction on pistols.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 09 mai 2012 - 07:45 .

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...

It isn't exactly the same point.  The issue is that relatively speaking the pistol class is outside the bounds of logic.  And as for calibers, there isn't really a plethora of calibers that are actually used by militaries, especially in small arms.

The whole point is that they wouldn't bother developing the Valiant if you can have a hand sized weapon with more damage, more capacity, and essentially the same accuracy.  The only thing the Valiant has going for it is rate of fire.

And its built-in scope. And its better selection of mods.

This is the point. People keep repeating 'The Paladin is so much better' and they keep leaving out important details, thus skewing the comparison.

As I've said before, unbalanced comparisons are meaningless and they certainly don't qualify as reason for fiddling with the stats.

Ignoring the term stopping power, I don't understand the analogy.  Consider that the USP Mk23 in .45 ACP was developed for special forces and that no military is using a .22LR for combat.

You don't understand it because you've taken it literally. The point I was making is that people are comparing the Paladin to things like the Mantis (which isn't even a military weapon) and using these situations to justify nerfing it, apparently without realising that they're comparing the creme de la creme of one class against the bog-standard of the other. Thus, the point behind the analogy is that trying to compare a top-grade military piece against a basic civilian weapon doesn't make any sense, and yet people insist on doing it.

The comparisons to the Valiant and Black Widow are more sensible but then, under such comparisons it becomes far harder to paint the pciture that the pistols are totally overpowered.

And since we want to make analogies, if you try to stratify the sniper rifles with analogies to current calibers, then the top tier pistols are idiotically powerful.  Carnifex and Paladin have more power than .500 SW Magnum or .454 Casull.  The Phalanx would be .44 magnum for God's sake.  Even the Predator is more powerful than a  .357 Magnum relative to the Widow.  How does that make sense?

It doesn't, but that was my point - trying to equate ME's weapons with real world calibres is a meaningless waste of time, as they share nothing in common. It's like trying to compare muskets to modern day assault rifles, it doesn't make any sense. Saying stuff like 'Carnifex and Paladin have more power than .500 SW Magnum or .454 Casull' is totally pointless, as a) there's no reason they should have more or less and their comparison to real world calibres has nothing to do with whether the guns are balanced or not.

I mean, consider for just a moment - where has the expectation came from that pistols are 'too powerful'? We're talking about a device that fires a round at roughly 10 times the speed of sound, over 3 times the speed of a modern day rifle round muzzle velocity. Where on earth has the assumption came from that ME pistols should share any characteristics at all, beyond the fact that they're one-handed? Pistols in ME are superior armour penetrators than most rifles. Pistols maintain fewer effective 'rounds in the clip' then modern day pistols. They don't share any characteristics beyond the fact that they're designed to be wielded in one hand, so why do people insist that they should reflect modern day pistols?

The issue is that if we increased the damage on most of the weapons that should be outperforming pistols the game would be even more easy than it is already, and that is in fact a bad thing.  This isn't misguided at all.  But yes, ideally powers need to be readjusted... but fixing the weight vs damage output of the weapons would go a way towards fixing that, as you wouldn't have the win button power class setups with magic pistols.

It just seems to be the automatic knee-jerk response to any kind of imbalance is 'NERF EVERYTHING'. Hell, we're in a situation where some of the sniper rifles fall behind assault rifles in terms of performance and the suggested fix from some people is to nerf a totally different class of weapon.

I'm just glad that these people aren't in charge of balancing, as mindlessly nerfing everything within reach has never fixed any problems before.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 09 mai 2012 - 08:14 .

[capn233]

JaegerBane wrote...


And its built-in scope. And its better selection of mods.

This is the point. People keep repeating 'The Paladin is so much better' and they keep leaving out important details, thus skewing the comparison.

As I've said before, unbalanced comparisons are meaningless and they certainly don't qualify as reason for fiddling with the stats.

The built in scope of the Valiant gives you one free mod compared to a Paladin with a scope already.  What are the better selection of mods for the rifle?  Extended Barrel is available to either, as is Piercing.  The SR piercing gives you a little more cover penetration.  You can't extend magazine capacity on the sniper rifles, but you can the pistols.  What are all these better mods for rifles?   There really aren't any.

We aren't skewing anything here.  The Paladin is basically as effective as the Valiant.

You don't understand it because you've taken it literally. The point I was making is that people are comparing the Paladin to things like the Mantis (which isn't even a military weapon) and using these situations to justify nerfing it, apparently without realising that they're comparing the creme de la creme of one class against the bog-standard of the other. Thus, the point behind the analogy is that trying to compare a top-grade military piece against a basic civilian weapon doesn't make any sense, and yet people insist on doing it.

There is much that is illogical here.  The Mantis is in fact a military weapon that is more commonly used by police and militias at the time of the game due to the prevelance of kinetic barriers (not that real life sniper rifles can't be based on a hunting rifle like the Remington 700 anyway).  Paladin is supposed to be a concealed carry pistol developed for law enforcement.

Even in your new analogy, top grade military handguns do not compete in power with hardly any rifles.  Civillian or otherwise.  Ignoring that, let's see if the sniper rifles are military weapons or for space squirrel hunting.  From ME3 descriptions:

Mantis
"The Mantis is a powerful sniper rifle which is able to take out most targets in a single shot. It's incredibly accurate at long range, but rate of fire is slow. Manufactured by Devlon Industries, the Mantis is primarily used by police and planetary militia groups."
The ME2 description notes it to be "less popular with militaries due to increase in kinetic barriers."

Viper
"The Viper is a semi-automatic, rapid-fire sniper rifle manufactured by Rosenkov Materials. Rosenkov developed a patented automated-release system that assists with thermal-clip ejection, shortening the Viper's reload time. This rifle is popular with military snipers, who appreciate a long-range gun that can snap off multiple shots in the blink of an eye."
Of course the ME2 description is is even more helpful: "Rapid-fire military sniper rifle."

Raptor
"The Raptor is a human version of a turian weapon developed for conflict on the low-gravity world Amar. Fighting
at longer ranges than expected, the turians optimized a low-recoil, semi-automatic rifle with a scope, and issued it to their regular infantry, creating a hybrid weapon that was half-assault rifle and half-sniper weapon. Cerberus assigns the Raptor to Nemesis snipers."

Incisor
"The Incisor is a sniper rifle designed to overload active defenses. Firing three rounds with each pull of the trigger, the Incisor was initially advertised as having negligible recoil, although under real combat conditions the second and third rounds frequently climb in difficulty."
Again, the ME2 desciption is more informative, stating that it is "one of a new wave of military and police sniper rifles".

Indra
"The Indra is the first military-grade, fully automatic sniper rifle."

Valiant
"The Valiant is a sniper rifle tested by Alliance soldiers during a series of harsh survival exercises on the planet
Kruljaven. This streamlined weapon employs a sophisticated fire-control system that improves accuracy by stabilizing the barrel during targeting"

None of these rifles say "popular with pyjack hunters."  They are all of military or paramilitary origin.  Even if this distinction is somewhat dubious anyway, since a weapon doesn't become less powerful when sold to civillians.

The comparisons to the Valiant and Black Widow are more sensible but then, under such comparisons it becomes far harder to paint the pciture that the pistols are totally overpowered.

The Widow is supposed to be an anti-materiel rifle.  That means it is for vehicles, not for use against troops as stated in the ME2 description: "Weighing in at 39 kilograms, the Widow Anti-Material Rifle is primarily used by sniper teams in assault missions against armored vehicles or krogan."  The fact that you think a pistol should be compared in damage to either of these is pretty telling.

It doesn't, but that was my point - trying to equate ME's weapons with real world calibres is a meaningless waste of time, as they share nothing in common. It's like trying to compare muskets to modern day assault rifles, it doesn't make any sense. Saying stuff like 'Carnifex and Paladin have more power than .500 SW Magnum or .454 Casull' is totally pointless, as a) there's no reason they should have more or less and their comparison to real world calibres has nothing to do with whether the guns are balanced or not.

You oppened the door with your .45 ACP vs .22LR example.  Is it surprising that someone might start quoting calibers after you make some analogy with them yourself?

But ok let's just imagine we can't compare them to modern day weapons, despite sharing striking similarities in name and function.

I mean, consider for just a moment - where has the expectation came from that pistols are 'too powerful'? We're talking about a device that fires a round at roughly 10 times the speed of sound, over 3 times the speed of a modern day rifle round muzzle velocity. Where on earth has the assumption came from that ME pistols should share any characteristics at all, beyond the fact that they're one-handed? Pistols in ME are superior armour penetrators than most rifles. Pistols maintain fewer effective 'rounds in the clip' then modern day pistols. They don't share any characteristics beyond the fact that they're designed to be wielded in one hand, so why do people insist that they should reflect modern day pistols?

Please apply simple logic.  That is all I am asking.  You are defending the balance by handwaving, saying "it is the future, logic shouldn't apply."

What do you think the effect of applying the "future tech" used to create any number of the pistols in game (pick any of them, it doesn't matter) if it was applied to a weapon of more than twice the size and weight?  What do you think the damage output would be?  Would there be a plethora of sniper rifles (not plinkers, not varmint hunting guns, sniper rifles) that have much less damage than a pistol?  That is not logical whatsoever, even based on the technobabble of the lore.

It just seems to be the automatic knee-jerk response to any kind of imbalance is 'NERF EVERYTHING'. Hell, we're in a situation where some of the sniper rifles fall behind assault rifles in terms of performance and the suggested fix from some people is to nerf a totally different class of weapon.

I'm just glad that these people aren't in charge of balancing, as mindlessly nerfing everything within reach has never fixed any problems before.

Nobody asked for nerfing everything.  This is simply a ridiculous characterization, a strawman argument.  And no, the solution to fixing assault rifles is to buff them not nerf everything including pistols.  That doesn't mean that pistols get off the hook for being overpowered.  We are talking about balance afterall.  Especially in a system with weapon weight.  The lightest classes of weapons should be the least effective at dealing damage.  That is balance.  The Paladin is lighter upgraded than any Assault Rifle whatsoever, at least in SP.  That doesn't mean that I don't think it shouldn't potentially be as or slightly more effective than low tier rifles, it is afterall "the best pistol available" in game.  But the fact that it is even remotely as good at dealing damage as the best rifles is a problem.

As long as we have gone into extreme rhetoric, my counter-observation is that everyone that whines or posts the "nerf everything" meme really just want to keep their win buttons intact.

I don't mind that you think there should be powerful pistols, but right now there is hardly any trade off.  They are light, very accurate, and the recoil is hardly anything compared to the other weapons.  They need to be brought in line.

Modifié par capn233, 09 mai 2012 - 10:08 .

[Nethershadow]

Who in this thread has suggested nerfing everything? Nerfs are sometimes the best solution for balance, just dont do to much of at once. I think there is a bit to much hyperbole being thrown around making everything sound much more dire than it really is.

Does anyone use any pistol other than the Carni or Pally with a scope?
The only info i ever see on these forums / other sites is the only pistols that are used scoped is the Carni / Pally because they can give you the functionality of a SR.

The relevance to real life weaponry gives some basis of concept. It doesnt have to follow real life exactly, but to many aspects of the game as Capn has mentioned follow real life representation with small arms.

But so far i think the best balance change for pistols would be what Jaeger suggested, just cap the range on them. This way it allows casters to use the scope for powers, the gun is still of benefit and unchanged stats overall.

[capn233]

Phalanx with a scope is a good weapon.  I am sure someone has used it in SP, I used it a lot in MP before I got decent levels of the Carnifex or Paladin.

My whole position on the pistols is that they are a little too good for the weight. I don't want to nerf them back to the stone age or anything. In fact I think they should buff the ROF of the Carnifex and Paladin. It's just that I also think the "recoil" should actually be a factor when using them, and right now practically speaking it isn't.  Especially if the damage is kept constant.

Modifié par capn233, 10 mai 2012 - 02:17 .

[StarcloudSWG]

I've never used the Carnifex or the Paladin with a scope. It's ridiculous to do so; the scopes just limit your vision while you're aiming.

My favorite pistols are actually the Phalanx and the N7 Eagle. They're lighter, they have a decent punch, decent heat sink capacity, and a good rate of fire.

I still disagree with limiting the range for heavy pistols. The 'problem' is accuracy, that's what people are complaining about. They're too accurate and 'replace' sniper rifles on smaller maps like the ones in ME 3. So increasing recoil would be one way of reducing accuracy, and so is decreasing the inherent accuracy of the specific heavy pistols that are the 'problem'.

[JaegerBane]

Ok capn, in the interests of keeping this thread readable I'm going to try and respond to the gists of your post, rather than point by point, so apologies if I miss parts....

capn233 wrote...
The built in scope of the Valiant gives you one free mod compared to a Paladin with a scope already.  What are the better selection of mods for the rifle?

Concentration mod. Extra damage (on top of the extended Barrel) and significantly increased ease of use. Paladin (or indeed, any pistol) can't compete with that, as in order to have extra rounds in the clip and a scope to snipe in the first place, you have no access to the barrel and nothing of equivalence to the concentration mod.

Regarding your point about Law enforcement and squirrel-hunting, I'm afraid that you're going off on an irrelevant tangent there. Nowhere did I mention anything to do with this and hence, I'm not going to try and defend a point you've made up. My point was that top-end weapons from one category shouldn't be compared to bottom-tier weapons from another category with any expectation of the result meaning anything. Furthermore, when I say military weapon, I mean a weapon in use by the military. The reason the mantis is not is because it a) is specifically referred to as not being one and is ineffective against modern defences. You can split hairs about that all you like but the point is in the comaprison, not the specifics, and hence I'm not going to go into any further detail on that.

The fact that you think a pistol should be compared in damage to either of these is pretty telling.

Excuse me? Stick to what is being written, please. I don't recall *anyone*, let alone myself, claiming that the Paladin is, should be or might be better than the Widow.

You oppened the door with your .45 ACP vs .22LR example. 

This is purely an excuse to bring in yet more comparisons to real world weapons. The point behind the comparison was to show the fallacy of trying to compare items intended for one purpose, from one background, to another unrelated item, and you damn well know that.

Please apply simple logic.  That is all I am asking.  You are defending the balance by handwaving, saying "it is the future, logic shouldn't apply."

Total strawman. What I'm actually saying is that there is no reason to assume that when weapons use totally different principles, totally different technology, and demonstrate totally different characteristics, what holds for weapons today must hold for them.

Sure, there'll be some smiliarity, but what you're doing is the equivalent of taking a WW2 submarine and saying that because this is how submarines did work, modern day submarines must work the same... despite the fact that advances in technology have not only vastly extended their range, size and submersible duration but also fundamentally changed their role in warfare. Refusing to make that assumption is not 'handwaving' or claiming 'logic doesn't apply', its making a reasonable deduction based on the info.

I mean, seriously, your whole argument appears to be based on the fact that the weapons have similar sounding names... anti-materiel rifle, pistol, shotgun, etc. 'Armour' has been something soldiers have worn for centuries.... so do we assume modern Kestrel suits function just like 15th century platemail, because its called 'armour'? Do we assume kamikaze bombers function just like modern day cruise missles, both being guided weapons? Do we assume the Tomahawk of Native American peoples functions like the Tomahawk mounted on modern day naval vessels? I mean, hey, they got the same name, they must work the same, right?

You could extend this into all sorts of fields. Electrical and Petrol/Diesel engines carry the same name and both have the same purpose, but would you assume they have the same characteristics on that basis? How about Ore refining, bauxite vs ferrite? Music storage, MP3 vs vinyl? Home movie, DVD vs VHS/VCR?

Very few advancing  technology focuses keep the same charateristics and I've yet to hear any good reason as to why a weapon firing an miniature projectile at Mach 10 with mass that has been artificially modified from a weapon using purely electrical will have anything to do with a weapon using a chemical reaction to accelerate a much larger projectile with totally different configuration at much slower speed.

Nobody asked for nerfing everything. 

No, I get that, it wasn't meant to be literal. I was getting at the tendenacy that people have to fix perceived imbalances simply by nerfing stuff. ME3 is certainly not the first game to fall into that.

What frustrates me is that some people are suggesting nerfs not out of any rational balance attempt, but because 'this is how x works IRL'. There's no logical reason to use this as justification, as we're dealing with fictional technology hundreds of years in the future, in a game. I could sort of see where that was coming from when considering, say, Halo, where human weapons are still based on current conventions (even firing current calibres, though the absurdity of that is a debate for another thread), but here, when the tech is so clearly beyond current stuff, I'm afraid it doesn;t make any sense.

There's also the problem that stuff that *desperately* needs buffed (such as the Viper and Incisor) is not going to be fixed by nerfing something else. It was telling when I mentioned the issue with guns vs powers and the response was, 'yeah, powers need nerfing too'. I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it isn;t a mindset that is going to produce anything worthwhile.

As it happens, I *do* think pistols should be nerfed... as I say, cut the range. I suggest this because it would keep sniper rifles as long-range pieces while maintaining the punch of heavy pistols, which is a fair group of niches. It worked extremely well in Deus Ex and i believe it will work well here (in fact, I know it will, as this is precisely how the 100% accurate recoilless Particle Rifle works and it fits snugly between SR and SG range). I don't suggest it because I want to make up long-winded and totally irrelevant comparisons about how the Paladin is most like a Raging Bull etc.

*sigh*

This turned into a much longer post than I intended. Sorry peeps.

Capn, how about we just agree to disagree, or take the debate to PM? I doubt this thread will go very far at this rate

Modifié par JaegerBane, 10 mai 2012 - 04:45 .

[capn233]

Geez.

You are inventing all sorts of oddball arguments, then claiming I am misinterpreting them.

Let's start with the pistols vs rifles yet again. Concentration mod adds a whopping 15% damage, and as for ease of use that is of course relative to how decent you are in the first place. But sure, it makes it easier to use than the pistol. But now you have given up either Extended Barrel (which gives a larger bonus, 25%) or SR Piercing which gives you a lot of cover penetration as well as the armor piercing mechanic. As for your point about the Paladin, you don't have to take the extra rounds. Paladin already has more shots than the Valiant, and does a whole lot more damage than any of the rifles that hold more shots. But you could take scope and extended clip and do a whole lot more burst damage than the Valiant.

As for LE and squirrel hunting, you introduced the analogy between .45 ACP and a .22LR carbine. This analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. You went on to claim that I missed your more basic meaning about comparing top tier military weapons with what you are claiming is a "law enforcement" weapon, and that was the reason you used the absurdly weak example of a .22 carbine. You are making an effectiveness analogy that doesn't hold up. For a variety of reasons. Neither the military nor law enforcement uses something that weak. It is a caliber used for squirrel hunting. If you didn't want to introduce that concept then you shouldn't have made that analogy.

Alternatively, trying to frame your analogy more simply such that a "top tier" military pistol can be more effective than a "low tier" civilian weapon does not work. There is absolutely no weapon in the sniper rifle category that was not designed as a military weapon. Any claim to the contrary is something you are inventing. And it absolutely is not an irrelevant tangent to try and explain why your analogy makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Law enforcement uses practically the same weapons as the military when it comes to rifles for marksmen and even assault rifles for "tactical" teams. They don't develop less effective weapons and market them to police. Of course, police aren't using weapons that aren't meant for use against humans. But they aren't using weapons meant for rodents either.  And interestingly enough, LE has access to more effective (not less effective) ammunition for use against humans because they don't have to worry about the Hague ban on expanding bullets.

Even if I was to let you get away with suggesting the Mantis isn't actually a military weapon, every single other sniper rifle in the game is specifically stated to be one. That is why I listed the descriptions. There is no weapon in the game that fits with your analogy whatsoever if taken to mean "in comparison with low tier civilian rifles."  Again, this is why squirrel guns or pyjack hunting weapons are in fact germane to this discussion.

And that isn't even what is happening. The most common comparison for the Paladin is the Valiant. The Valiant, a special forces rifle that a very significant portion of people think is the absolute best sniper rifle in the game.  Nobody is upset that the best pistol is better than the worst rifle.  It is that it rivals the best.  And weighs less to boot.

As for what I know about your analogy, all I know that it is completely irrelevant to the game. You are pretending that the sniper rifle class was invented for something other than killing humanoids or APCs. That is not the case. I am sorry that you do not like real world examples to be brought in to show the absurdity of your own analogy, that is why I haven't used them since you complained.

Onto the next wonderful topic, I never claimed that the weapons work exactly like they would today. I did claim that a small amount of logic should apply. From a development standpoint, nearly all of the sniper rifles, assault rifles, and smg's did not merit development if a handheld weapon is as effective. All they do is weigh more and take up more space in the armory.

Now for the nonsensical journey you make through my position on the relative usefulness of the weapons in comparison to today's weapons. I don't know what you are on about. My argument is not simply that the categories are named the way they are. Put on your thinking cap and think about railguns (mass accelerators) and what the muzzle velocity would be proportional to. In ME the larger mass accelerators do more damage, except for the special case of pistols which make no sense. Hence a dreadnought's gun does more damage than a cruiser's and down the line through the Mako and to your Mantis. Your claim is that there is some sort of special engineering in the pistols that makes them much more effective than they should be for their size, but that this technology cannot be applied to any other weapon class, nor to heavier guns on the tanks or ships. That is in fact what you are effectively claiming.

And again, the claims in game are that physics as we know them still largely apply. The notion that mass accelerator weapons wouldn't lose energy out of the muzzle does not follow from that statement. Just because you don't think that they would lose a significant fraction of energy at range does not make it so. We know this in part due to logic, and in part because it bothered the developers of the Eviscerator enough that they redesigned projectiles for better ballistic coefficient. Something that wouldn't matter if energy bleed didn't matter whatsoever.

Even if you want to change your position to "well future technobabble means that pistols are relatively more effective today, via the mass effect" the problem with that is that they were never simply relatively more effective. They are more effective than most of the weapons in every other class pound per pound, in damage per weight, and damage per second. People like science fiction when it has some amount of logic and internal consistency.

As for this thread, it was done long ago. There is no hope for any balance changes in SP from Bioware.

Modifié par capn233, 10 mai 2012 - 07:16 .

[StarcloudSWG]

You are implying that the energy drop off from the muzzle is even more severe than current, modern-day weapons. That is what I'm objecting to. At the very least, they're as efficient as modern weapons, which means that dinky Avenger is still lethal out to a mile distance. It may not be accurate, but the energy loss is NOT severe enough to justify limiting the damage or the range over the small maps and short engagement distances that ME 3 missions have.

[capn233]

If you wanted to be ultra strict about sticking to lore, then you need to fix projective speeds such that each shot hits the target "instantly" at all ranges that are included in the game.

The damage bleed was suggested as a balance mechanic, one that already existed in the series. All I actually pointed out is that the projectiles would indeed lose energy after they exited the rails, if they were not fired in a vacuum. Without knowing their mass, velocity, drag coefficient (together their ballistic coefficient), and the density of the medium they are moving through it would be guesswork. Given that these rounds are actually lighter than current bullets, they would lose energy faster unless they had higher BC's.

Modifié par capn233, 10 mai 2012 - 10:05 .

[Nethershadow]

It appears that some of the arguements are using both flavor text (game lore) and mechanics togather which just doesnt work. Flavor text is how the story teller wants it represented, but game mechanics can be very different in effect. This applies in many games and rpgs, where the description says it does x, but the mechanics dont represent that at all or might not even have any simular ability put on x.

So like the Mantis, regardless of what the flavor text says, the weapon most definately competes vs the other SR~s which are military grade weapons via game mechanics.

Though the more i have thought about it the more i think the range cap would be the ideal solution to the pistol problem with scopes. Though the range cap would need to be at the far end of short range i am thinking. This leaves room for the need of mid to long range weapons.

[capn233]

It's all largely moot anyway, I doubt we see any changes to SP.

Jaegar and I have different ideas of how the game should work, but since neither of us work at Bioware it really doesn't matter.

[Nethershadow]

capn233 wrote...

It's all largely moot anyway, I doubt we see any changes to SP.

Jaegar and I have different ideas of how the game should work, but since neither of us work at Bioware it really doesn't matter.

Well that is very true, but the discussion about it and seeing that others find the same issue is enough i guess. I mod the game alot as is which has given me many many hours more of entertainment from it. Then MP on top.

As for BW making any changes i really cant see that happening. Maybe it would happen if this was before EA bought them, as the $ signs are very apparent in this 3rd release to how they did MP. Damn shame i tell ya. Ç(

[The Grey Ranger]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

You are implying that the energy drop off from the muzzle is even more severe than current, modern-day weapons. That is what I'm objecting to. At the very least, they're as efficient as modern weapons, which means that dinky Avenger is still lethal out to a mile distance. It may not be accurate, but the energy loss is NOT severe enough to justify limiting the damage or the range over the small maps and short engagement distances that ME 3 missions have.

As capn233 said the round for ME guns probably do lose energy faster than a current high velocity rifle round.  If you go by the game lore, the rounds are pretty small.  The codex mentions them being about the size of a grain of sand.  Admittedly energy loss is not totally about the size of the round but the ballistic coefficient, the cross sectional density,  etc.   That said a lighter higher velocity round in any sort of gaseous environment is going to encounter higher air resistance, since higher velocity automatically increases drag. 

There are a few things we actually know about the ammunition material.  It has a least some tungsten content in a lot of cases(read ap ammo),  If it is incendiary, you're probably talking some sort of phoserpherus content.  Unless the rest of the round is something like depleted uranium, this will inherently lower the cross sectional density in relation to a modern copper jacketed, lead core rifle round.

[Sith_exar_kun]

I really love my scoped m-99 saber, I use it with the infiltrator even on silver!

[SmawgSS]

If you don't like scopes... then don't use em'....

I figure like this... walk to your local gun shop, and see if you can find a scope for... well... anything. My only rant is that there isn't a scope for the shotgun! It might actually make that N7 pos. usefull!

[known_hero]

SmawgSS wrote...

If you don't like scopes... then don't use em'....

Thanks for "reading" the thread.

[N172]

It is more difficult to headshot targets with a carnifex/paladin and scope than with an actual sniper rifle.
There are even asari adepts using the mantis instead of the carnifex.
Sniper rifles wont work very well on maps like glacier since enemies on sight are never far away, but on dagger, giant and hydra they do.

Btw. Raptor: "the turians optimized a low-recoil, semi-automatic rifle with a scope, and issued it to their regular infantry, creating a hybrid weapon that was half-assault rifle and half-sniper weapon."

[CuseGirl]

JaegerBane wrote...
I'm afraid I have to disagree with you there. There's at least one or two weapons in every class that realistically don't have any niche and basically just sit there as filler.

For example...

Heavy Pistols: Predator. basically a slower firing Eagle.
Shotguns: Katana. When you have the Eviscerator and the Spike Thrower on the stage, there is no more room for a 'standard' shotgun.
Assault Rifles: Argus. Seriously, What is the purpose behind this gun?
SMGs: Shuriken. No purpose whatsoever,
Sniper Rifles: Incisor..... Really?

It's almost like a mistake was made during ME-2 and they forgot to code in the Argus and we got the Mattock and it was awesome. And when ME-3 development came, that ONE programmer or art designer jumped up during a meeting and said "if you fckn forget to load in the Argus, I'll a cut a ****, they can't get the Mattock before using the Argus!"......so they remembered to put it in....and forgot that it sucks....