280 réponses à ce sujet

[Rokayt]

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

K1LL STREAK wrote...


It would take something like this rather than simple damage buffs to make the game evenly balanced.

Any thoughts?

I also don't think damage buffs or enemy nerfs are necessarily a solution, because it's Gold, after all. And you can't tailor a game change based entirely upon one level of difficulty.

Ultimately, Gold is the least casual difficulty mode. People who play gold generally have higher expectations in terms of game balance. Warning flags should fly up when a gun is practically unusable in gold mode for various reasons.

The Locust, Vindicator, and Avenger all need love for gold.

I think we should be looking to the cause.

It already takes longer to kill a trash mob with an Avenger on Gold than it does on Silver. That's because that trash mob has more Health on Gold. It's a tougher difficulty, so that is to be expected. But the Avenger will still kill that Trash mob.

The difference is the amount of time the player can devote to firing without being killed in the face. And on Gold, the reason for this is increased hit probability against the squad.

The way I figure it, you have Avengers doing more damage, and that upsets their balance on lower difficulties. Lowering enemy Health/Shields/Barrier on Gold would only have an incremental impact because the enemy does not care about suffering damage in the process of accurately hitting you from across the map.

It's the enemy accuracy that makes sustained-fire weapons problematic to employ on Gold.

In my opinion, of course.

Sustained fire weapons also do not necessaraly give better DPS over guns of the same weight as well, due to the one shot weapons having reload canceling.

Also, sustained fire weapons on average hit for 1/5th of their normal damage when firing on a target that isn't killed by 1 shot from the single shot/slow shooting guns. Making them tactically insignificant, as their designated targets still die instantly from single shot weapons, and they are worthless against the single shot weapons intended targets.

Again, if you increase the damage to a given AR just to make it useful on Gold, it will imbalance that weapon on lower difficulties.

Sure, I'd like for the Phaeston to do more damage per shot on Bronze or Silver. But I don't need it to do so. I'm not getting punished on Bronze for hanging out of cover, hosing an enemy down with bullet sauce until they fall over.

But this does happen on Gold, because enemy accuracy is dialed up to 11. As I have said before, it is this specific factor which necessitates the ability to do as much damage as fast as possible on Gold. It creates a world of difference in the leap from Silver to Gold.

It is a change in the parameters of the match. My suggestion is to dial back that parameter change; not to change weapon damage, because that seems like the less invasive alteration.

There are other causes to this issue.

The fact that the phastron does 5, instead of 40 damage to about half of all enemies you could expect to appear is incredibly major.

Right now, any weapon that inflicts less then about 65 damage at its base simply cannot be deployed in gold, due to it being incredibly impractical otheriwise. (GPSMG exluded, due to having a ROF 2.8X the next in line for top ROF.)

Dialing this back would be nice, but a tremendous ammount of the difficulty of gold would vanish if the DR was removed, and a series weapon attachement would instead be trivialized instead.

With a proper build one can take enemy fire while inflicting sustained damage, but one cannot inflict more then 20 damage to half the enemies in gold with a shockingly large portion of the guns. A salarian can fire a clip of the phastron without fitness with proper energy drain utilization without taking cover, but one cannot kill things such as a pyro with it with half the efficiency of characters who use harder hitting guns, slower firing guns of the same weight.

[whateverman7]

Rokayt wrote...

I am seeing the Eagle getting used EVERY OTHER ROUND now, to awesome effect!

The Hurricane is a god killing machine now that it is more stable.

The Saber is now a valid scopeless replacement for a sniper rifle.

The Mattock is a valid replacement for a Raptor, vice versa.

Sabotouge is a nice power now.

Tech armor is an excellent power.

Guns have been buffed in general to the main community (LVL 4 ammos.)

The Palidin is a reasonable replacement for the Carnifex.

The Wraith is an excellent low weight shotgun.

Most assault rifles are significantly stronger/lighter then before. They need plenty of work, but the sun is rising.

Lets look at the nerfs:

The Kyrase no longer outshines the black widow ENTIRELY.

The Falcon no longer breaks the game (AND DOES DECENT DAMAGE NOW. ITs honestly my third favorite gun as is.)

Tactical cloak is now Tactical.

another post that lets me know a lot of the bsn community cares more about spreadsheet info and being sheepish then actually playing the game...i say that cause all of the things you listed were already true before any buffs/nerfs....but not according to the bsn community....according to the bsn community: everything sucked except the carnifax, bw, and claymore

[Rokayt]

whateverman7 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

I am seeing the Eagle getting used EVERY OTHER ROUND now, to awesome effect!

The Hurricane is a god killing machine now that it is more stable.

The Saber is now a valid scopeless replacement for a sniper rifle.

The Mattock is a valid replacement for a Raptor, vice versa.

Sabotouge is a nice power now.

Tech armor is an excellent power.

Guns have been buffed in general to the main community (LVL 4 ammos.)

The Palidin is a reasonable replacement for the Carnifex.

The Wraith is an excellent low weight shotgun.

Most assault rifles are significantly stronger/lighter then before. They need plenty of work, but the sun is rising.

Lets look at the nerfs:

The Kyrase no longer outshines the black widow ENTIRELY.

The Falcon no longer breaks the game (AND DOES DECENT DAMAGE NOW. ITs honestly my third favorite gun as is.)

Tactical cloak is now Tactical.

another post that lets me know a lot of the bsn community cares more about spreadsheet info and being sheepish then actually playing the game...i say that cause all of the things you listed were already true before any buffs/nerfs....but not according to the bsn community....according to the bsn community: everything sucked except the carnifax, bw, and claymore

Plenty of those things would have been flat out lies months ago.

[whateverman7]

why is it so hard for yall to understand: the game doesnt revolve around gold....once yall accept this, a lot of these kinda threads wont be created

[whateverman7]

Rokayt wrote...

Plenty of those things would have been flat out lies months ago.

no they wouldnt have...how do i know? i was playing the game using the things mentioned....

the saber has always been a great sub for a sniper rifle (i even got some to try it out over a month ago when i mentioned it in another 'ARs suck' thread)

hurricane has always been, as you put it: a god killing machine...all you ahd to do was put a stabilizer mod on it

the things you said about the mattock, wraith, tech armor,  and sabatoge were already true

the eagle has always been a good gun...but once something gets the bsn stamp of 'it's sucks' nothing changes that consensus until bw changes numbers on the spreadsheet, which is ...i say that cause the numbers they change be slight, but just cause yall see a difference, yall react differently....it's hilarious and sad to be honest


....anywway, i'm look at your post again and comment on the other things you said, this is all i remember off hand...

Modifié par whateverman7, 28 juin 2012 - 11:16 .

[Strict31]

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

K1LL STREAK wrote...


It would take something like this rather than simple damage buffs to make the game evenly balanced.

Any thoughts?

I also don't think damage buffs or enemy nerfs are necessarily a solution, because it's Gold, after all. And you can't tailor a game change based entirely upon one level of difficulty.

Ultimately, Gold is the least casual difficulty mode. People who play gold generally have higher expectations in terms of game balance. Warning flags should fly up when a gun is practically unusable in gold mode for various reasons.

The Locust, Vindicator, and Avenger all need love for gold.

I think we should be looking to the cause.

It already takes longer to kill a trash mob with an Avenger on Gold than it does on Silver. That's because that trash mob has more Health on Gold. It's a tougher difficulty, so that is to be expected. But the Avenger will still kill that Trash mob.

The difference is the amount of time the player can devote to firing without being killed in the face. And on Gold, the reason for this is increased hit probability against the squad.

The way I figure it, you have Avengers doing more damage, and that upsets their balance on lower difficulties. Lowering enemy Health/Shields/Barrier on Gold would only have an incremental impact because the enemy does not care about suffering damage in the process of accurately hitting you from across the map.

It's the enemy accuracy that makes sustained-fire weapons problematic to employ on Gold.

In my opinion, of course.

Sustained fire weapons also do not necessaraly give better DPS over guns of the same weight as well, due to the one shot weapons having reload canceling.

Also, sustained fire weapons on average hit for 1/5th of their normal damage when firing on a target that isn't killed by 1 shot from the single shot/slow shooting guns. Making them tactically insignificant, as their designated targets still die instantly from single shot weapons, and they are worthless against the single shot weapons intended targets.

Again, if you increase the damage to a given AR just to make it useful on Gold, it will imbalance that weapon on lower difficulties.

Sure, I'd like for the Phaeston to do more damage per shot on Bronze or Silver. But I don't need it to do so. I'm not getting punished on Bronze for hanging out of cover, hosing an enemy down with bullet sauce until they fall over.

But this does happen on Gold, because enemy accuracy is dialed up to 11. As I have said before, it is this specific factor which necessitates the ability to do as much damage as fast as possible on Gold. It creates a world of difference in the leap from Silver to Gold.

It is a change in the parameters of the match. My suggestion is to dial back that parameter change; not to change weapon damage, because that seems like the less invasive alteration.

There are other causes to this issue.

The fact that the phastron does 5, instead of 40 damage to about half of all enemies you could expect to appear is incredibly major.

Right now, any weapon that inflicts less then about 65 damage at its base simply cannot be deployed in gold, due to it being incredibly impractical otheriwise. (GPSMG exluded, due to having a ROF 2.8X the next in line for top ROF.)

Dialing this back would be nice, but a tremendous ammount of the difficulty of gold would vanish if the DR was removed, and a series weapon attachement would instead be trivialized instead.

With a proper build one can take enemy fire while inflicting sustained damage, but one cannot inflict more then 20 damage to half the enemies in gold with a shockingly large portion of the guns. A salarian can fire a clip of the phastron without fitness with proper energy drain utilization without taking cover, but one cannot kill things such as a pyro with it with half the efficiency of characters who use harder hitting guns, slower firing guns of the same weight.

With the proper build, ARs become viable Gold weapons. Proper builds are not the issue.

You're speaking of damage reduction, but every difficulty above Bronze receives a base damage reduction, and the problem is not an issue on Silver.

Whether a weapon does 5 damage per shot or 50 damage per shot, the only difference is in the Time On Target. With that Phaeston, you have to spend more Time On Target in Gold than on Bronze or Silver. The enemy will still fall down at the end of that time; it will simply take longer.

The problem is that you are not allowed that T.O.T. because you are taking damage from things that are hitting you with near 100% accuracy. On Gold, every second you spend shooting something is a second exposed to enemy fire that is considerably more accurate than the other difficulty levels.

Simply changing the enemy accuracy is the least invasive change I can imagine. If you change weapon damage, this skews balance on other difficulties. If you remove DR, this skews balance for other weapons. And it means players are benefitting from a mechanic that the enemies are not. The Devs would have to go through each weapon and each class to see how they'd be individually impacted by a change in DR or a change in the damage of one class of weapons.

[whateverman7]

@ rokayt

just looked, let's see:

the thing about palidin was always true

the falcon never broke the game, and has always done decent damage

the kyrase vs bw boils down to player preference, cause both guns have pros/cons

tc was always tactical, it was just all in how the player used it

...the only thing that you are correct about that wouldnt have been true before is the lv4 ammo mod, since it just got released...but that isnt a good thing...i say that because for bw to even release a lv4 mod (which isnt neccessary) shows they have buffed/nerfed too much based off the minority's (mostly gold players whose egos got hurt when outscored and who think the game revolves around gold) ****ing and complaining, that they've messed up the balance that was in the game...

Modifié par whateverman7, 28 juin 2012 - 11:17 .

[Uhh.. Jonah]

If my Asari justicar can survive a gold match- and do fairly well- with her mattock then it is definitely gold viable. But yes, some AR just arent sufficient enough.

[Holy-Hamster]

Falcon did break the game pre-nerf. It was as laughable as the krysae was pre-nerf. And on non-infiltrators to boot, I never did try it on an infiltrator. Probably would have been hilarious.

Paladin's always been good imo I'll give you that one.

Krysae is just a stupid weapon. Should never have been a sniper rifle in the first place. As others have said, you don't snipe with it, it's like a mortar weapon. Before the nerf it beyond OP. Stopped playing with it after 3 rounds because it was so cheesy.

Eagle is crap, and I'd still argue that it is now but that's my opinion.

Saber was okay before, but now it's pretty good.

Didn't have the hurrcane till recently so I can't judge that one.

Sabotage has always been amazing, even after the nerf. Everyone bailed on female quarians though it seems like which is hilarious to me because they're still incredibly good.

TC was not "tactical" before. It was run around without a care because you get damage AND the safety net of 10 seconds cloak. Now you have to choose, damage or extra stealth time. Personally I do the same job just fine with 4 seconds of stealth. But now it's tactical.

[Rokayt]

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

K1LL STREAK wrote...


It would take something like this rather than simple damage buffs to make the game evenly balanced.

Any thoughts?

I also don't think damage buffs or enemy nerfs are necessarily a solution, because it's Gold, after all. And you can't tailor a game change based entirely upon one level of difficulty.

Ultimately, Gold is the least casual difficulty mode. People who play gold generally have higher expectations in terms of game balance. Warning flags should fly up when a gun is practically unusable in gold mode for various reasons.

The Locust, Vindicator, and Avenger all need love for gold.

I think we should be looking to the cause.

It already takes longer to kill a trash mob with an Avenger on Gold than it does on Silver. That's because that trash mob has more Health on Gold. It's a tougher difficulty, so that is to be expected. But the Avenger will still kill that Trash mob.

The difference is the amount of time the player can devote to firing without being killed in the face. And on Gold, the reason for this is increased hit probability against the squad.

The way I figure it, you have Avengers doing more damage, and that upsets their balance on lower difficulties. Lowering enemy Health/Shields/Barrier on Gold would only have an incremental impact because the enemy does not care about suffering damage in the process of accurately hitting you from across the map.

It's the enemy accuracy that makes sustained-fire weapons problematic to employ on Gold.

In my opinion, of course.

Sustained fire weapons also do not necessaraly give better DPS over guns of the same weight as well, due to the one shot weapons having reload canceling.

Also, sustained fire weapons on average hit for 1/5th of their normal damage when firing on a target that isn't killed by 1 shot from the single shot/slow shooting guns. Making them tactically insignificant, as their designated targets still die instantly from single shot weapons, and they are worthless against the single shot weapons intended targets.

Again, if you increase the damage to a given AR just to make it useful on Gold, it will imbalance that weapon on lower difficulties.

Sure, I'd like for the Phaeston to do more damage per shot on Bronze or Silver. But I don't need it to do so. I'm not getting punished on Bronze for hanging out of cover, hosing an enemy down with bullet sauce until they fall over.

But this does happen on Gold, because enemy accuracy is dialed up to 11. As I have said before, it is this specific factor which necessitates the ability to do as much damage as fast as possible on Gold. It creates a world of difference in the leap from Silver to Gold.

It is a change in the parameters of the match. My suggestion is to dial back that parameter change; not to change weapon damage, because that seems like the less invasive alteration.

There are other causes to this issue.

The fact that the phastron does 5, instead of 40 damage to about half of all enemies you could expect to appear is incredibly major.

Right now, any weapon that inflicts less then about 65 damage at its base simply cannot be deployed in gold, due to it being incredibly impractical otheriwise. (GPSMG exluded, due to having a ROF 2.8X the next in line for top ROF.)

Dialing this back would be nice, but a tremendous ammount of the difficulty of gold would vanish if the DR was removed, and a series weapon attachement would instead be trivialized instead.

With a proper build one can take enemy fire while inflicting sustained damage, but one cannot inflict more then 20 damage to half the enemies in gold with a shockingly large portion of the guns. A salarian can fire a clip of the phastron without fitness with proper energy drain utilization without taking cover, but one cannot kill things such as a pyro with it with half the efficiency of characters who use harder hitting guns, slower firing guns of the same weight.

With the proper build, ARs become viable Gold weapons. Proper builds are not the issue.

You're speaking of damage reduction, but every difficulty above Bronze receives a base damage reduction, and the problem is not an issue on Silver.

Whether a weapon does 5 damage per shot or 50 damage per shot, the only difference is in the Time On Target. With that Phaeston, you have to spend more Time On Target in Gold than on Bronze or Silver. The enemy will still fall down at the end of that time; it will simply take longer.

The problem is that you are not allowed that T.O.T. because you are taking damage from things that are hitting you with near 100% accuracy. On Gold, every second you spend shooting something is a second exposed to enemy fire that is considerably more accurate than the other difficulty levels.

Simply changing the enemy accuracy is the least invasive change I can imagine. If you change weapon damage, this skews balance on other difficulties. If you remove DR, this skews balance for other weapons. And it means players are benefitting from a mechanic that the enemies are not. The Devs would have to go through each weapon and each class to see how they'd be individually impacted by a change in DR or a change in the damage of one class of weapons.

The difference is, shooting at two targets with the same amount of armor, Your time on target will be 10X as long on gold as on silver with a gun that does 50 damage, where most factions deploy sizable numbers of armored units. The ramping up of DR to gold makes it so some guns need some sort of buff in order to be even worth consideration in the difficulty. I did not recomend removing DR, I simply said that DR basically serves as the guideline for a gun to simply be practical in a difficulty. Moreso in gold, where DR is infinitely more common then on lower difficulties.

Ultimately, enemy accuracy is a huge issue, but changing that too much would make the game grossly unpredictable when dealing with as much as a single enemy. At most, Limiting enemy weaponry (Minus Nemisis Raptors, given that the Lasersight:Assasination excuse,) to operate within the constraints of player weaponry would be effective.

[nicethugbert]

GPR and Phaeston are good for Asari Justicar defense build. Yes, the ARs are very build dependent.

[Strict31]

Rokayt wrote...


The difference is, shooting at two targets with the same amount of armor, Your time on target will be 10X as long on gold as on silver with a gun that does 50 damage, where most factions deploy sizable numbers of armored units. The ramping up of DR to gold makes it so some guns need some sort of buff in order to be even worth consideration in the difficulty. I did not recomend removing DR, I simply said that DR basically serves as the guideline for a gun to simply be practical in a difficulty. Moreso in gold, where DR is infinitely more common then on lower difficulties.

Ultimately, enemy accuracy is a huge issue, but changing that too much would make the game grossly unpredictable when dealing with as much as a single enemy. At most, Limiting enemy weaponry (Minus Nemisis Raptors, given that the Lasersight:Assasination excuse,) to operate within the constraints of player weaponry would be effective.

Whether it takes 5 seconds or 50 seconds, the target is still dead. This is nothing more than a matter of time.

And on Gold, that time is spent with things shooting you with a consistently extreme level of accuracy. This is why it is so dangerous to use sustained-fire weapons on Gold.

[the slynx]

+1 for better assault rifles on the tougher settings. Most just don't deal enough damage for the amount of time you're out of cover.

[vonSlash]

Harrier, Saber, Falcon (with ammo consumables), GPR (on Geth), Mattock, and Revenant (Barrel/Piercing) are all easily Gold-viable.

The others...not as much.

[Rokayt]

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...


The difference is, shooting at two targets with the same amount of armor, Your time on target will be 10X as long on gold as on silver with a gun that does 50 damage, where most factions deploy sizable numbers of armored units. The ramping up of DR to gold makes it so some guns need some sort of buff in order to be even worth consideration in the difficulty. I did not recomend removing DR, I simply said that DR basically serves as the guideline for a gun to simply be practical in a difficulty. Moreso in gold, where DR is infinitely more common then on lower difficulties.

Ultimately, enemy accuracy is a huge issue, but changing that too much would make the game grossly unpredictable when dealing with as much as a single enemy. At most, Limiting enemy weaponry (Minus Nemisis Raptors, given that the Lasersight:Assasination excuse,) to operate within the constraints of player weaponry would be effective.

Whether it takes 5 seconds or 50 seconds, the target is still dead. This is nothing more than a matter of time.

And on Gold, that time is spent with things shooting you with a consistently extreme level of accuracy. This is why it is so dangerous to use sustained-fire weapons on Gold.

Ultimately, this is why a buff that reduces time to kill is necessary on most of these 1000+ Shot to kill mainstream gold enemies guns. Reducing TTK on the guns that kill at the end of their second is how we balence them out with the guns that kill AT THE BEGINNING their second. Since beginning of burst killers are considerably safer then end of burst Killers.

[OhPa2]

Shouldn't ARs be more powerful than pistols and SMGs? In some cases a lot more?     I think so.

I don't have a Harrier or a Saber. But out of the Uncommon and Rare ARs I still find using the Phalanx a better choice - for me anyway. The Revenant? It's more like a fire-hose.

I would really enjoy playing a match using a damage dealing AR. Just my 2 cents.

Modifié par OhPa2, 29 juin 2012 - 02:30 .

[Strict31]

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...


The difference is, shooting at two targets with the same amount of armor, Your time on target will be 10X as long on gold as on silver with a gun that does 50 damage, where most factions deploy sizable numbers of armored units. The ramping up of DR to gold makes it so some guns need some sort of buff in order to be even worth consideration in the difficulty. I did not recomend removing DR, I simply said that DR basically serves as the guideline for a gun to simply be practical in a difficulty. Moreso in gold, where DR is infinitely more common then on lower difficulties.

Ultimately, enemy accuracy is a huge issue, but changing that too much would make the game grossly unpredictable when dealing with as much as a single enemy. At most, Limiting enemy weaponry (Minus Nemisis Raptors, given that the Lasersight:Assasination excuse,) to operate within the constraints of player weaponry would be effective.

Whether it takes 5 seconds or 50 seconds, the target is still dead. This is nothing more than a matter of time.

And on Gold, that time is spent with things shooting you with a consistently extreme level of accuracy. This is why it is so dangerous to use sustained-fire weapons on Gold.

Ultimately, this is why a buff that reduces time to kill is necessary on most of these 1000+ Shot to kill mainstream gold enemies guns. Reducing TTK on the guns that kill at the end of their second is how we balence them out with the guns that kill AT THE BEGINNING their second. Since beginning of burst killers are considerably safer then end of burst Killers.

The time to kill isn't the problem. The probelm is what is killing you during that time.

But regardless, this brings us back to the problem of making sure these weapons remain balanced on lower difficulties. I mean, you must be conscious of that at the very least, yes? If so, then you must also understand why I am eschewing it in favor of a less invasive alteration.

But...I'm kinda just repeating myself here, and since none of the things we've talked about is likely to be implemented before the Zombie Apocalypse occurs, I guess it's not important.

[Sacramentum]

They are viable on Gold, but largely outclassed by single shot weapons like the Cranifex or BW. Shields need to take more damage from ARs and SMGs.

[Strict31]

OhPa2 wrote...

Shouldn't ARs be more powerful than pistols and SMGs? In some cases a lot more?     I think so.

Not necessarily.

A .45 Colt 1911 will easily do as much damage as an M-16A4 (aka the M4). These rounds are doing damage, but different sorts of damage. For instance, you might have a slow moving, heavy pistol round that flattenes out as it penetrates a target, creating different types of cavitation inside the body. You may have a rifle round that isn't particularly heavy, but which tumbles inside the target, ripping and shredding. You may have a high velocity rifle round that delivers high penetration without any stopping power, and without doing much internal damage since it passes right through the body.

IRL, it is difficult to assign such comparisons as exist in a game. In a game, a bullet or weapon does a set amount of damage period. If it's not enough to remove an enemy's health, that enemy does not die. IRL, however, any given assault rifle can kill just as easily as any given pistol.

Then, you take into consideration that ME3 is set in the future, with imaginary technologies and strange creatures who can gain armor by eating other creatures. It's probably true that a trusty old .45 will still kill unarmored, unshielded people in the future, but what happens to a bullet when you put a Shield in its path? Or a Barrier?

And the bullets in this game aren't even using anything like a chemical accelerant (gunpowder).

The TL;DR version of the above is, we cannot know what the dynamics of future space-guns are or should be, because BW is making this all up from whole cloth.

[whateverman7]

Holy-Hamster wrote...

Falcon did break the game pre-nerf. It was as laughable as the krysae was pre-nerf. And on non-infiltrators to boot, I never did try it on an infiltrator. Probably would have been hilarious.

Paladin's always been good imo I'll give you that one.

Krysae is just a stupid weapon. Should never have been a sniper rifle in the first place. As others have said, you don't snipe with it, it's like a mortar weapon. Before the nerf it beyond OP. Stopped playing with it after 3 rounds because it was so cheesy.

Eagle is crap, and I'd still argue that it is now but that's my opinion.

Saber was okay before, but now it's pretty good.

Didn't have the hurrcane till recently so I can't judge that one.

Sabotage has always been amazing, even after the nerf. Everyone bailed on female quarians though it seems like which is hilarious to me because they're still incredibly good.

TC was not "tactical" before. It was run around without a care because you get damage AND the safety net of 10 seconds cloak. Now you have to choose, damage or extra stealth time. Personally I do the same job just fine with 4 seconds of stealth. But now it's tactical.

falcon didnt break the game...yall acting like everyone was running around with it, making the game unplayable, and that wasnt the case....i even had people tell me the gun sucked pre-nerf...

yall kill me with the krysae was op talk..no it wasnt...just like everything in the game, it has pros/cons....the only reason people had a problem with the krysae was it made scoring easy....and the so called good players got their egos hurt cause they were getting beat in score by players they deemed not as good...

we'll agree to disagree about the eagle

the saber has always been pretty good and has always been a good sup for sniper rifles....but i know, this is the bsn so ARs suck <_<

tc was tactical before, but it was just like everything else in the game: it's all how the player uses it....and it's funny, no one had a problem with tc until the krysae came along and let others score high...then all of a sudden all we heard was 'tc is overpowered' <_<....what let's you know the tc overpwered talk was all about ego: after the nerf, the ones that were crying it was overpowered, are now the same ones bragging about what they can still do with infiltrators <_<

[Rokayt]

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...

Strict31 wrote...

Rokayt wrote...


The difference is, shooting at two targets with the same amount of armor, Your time on target will be 10X as long on gold as on silver with a gun that does 50 damage, where most factions deploy sizable numbers of armored units. The ramping up of DR to gold makes it so some guns need some sort of buff in order to be even worth consideration in the difficulty. I did not recomend removing DR, I simply said that DR basically serves as the guideline for a gun to simply be practical in a difficulty. Moreso in gold, where DR is infinitely more common then on lower difficulties.

Ultimately, enemy accuracy is a huge issue, but changing that too much would make the game grossly unpredictable when dealing with as much as a single enemy. At most, Limiting enemy weaponry (Minus Nemisis Raptors, given that the Lasersight:Assasination excuse,) to operate within the constraints of player weaponry would be effective.

Whether it takes 5 seconds or 50 seconds, the target is still dead. This is nothing more than a matter of time.

And on Gold, that time is spent with things shooting you with a consistently extreme level of accuracy. This is why it is so dangerous to use sustained-fire weapons on Gold.

Ultimately, this is why a buff that reduces time to kill is necessary on most of these 1000+ Shot to kill mainstream gold enemies guns. Reducing TTK on the guns that kill at the end of their second is how we balence them out with the guns that kill AT THE BEGINNING their second. Since beginning of burst killers are considerably safer then end of burst Killers.

The time to kill isn't the problem. The probelm is what is killing you during that time.

But regardless, this brings us back to the problem of making sure these weapons remain balanced on lower difficulties. I mean, you must be conscious of that at the very least, yes? If so, then you must also understand why I am eschewing it in favor of a less invasive alteration.

But...I'm kinda just repeating myself here, and since none of the things we've talked about is likely to be implemented before the Zombie Apocalypse occurs, I guess it's not important.

Time to kill is exactly the problem because of whats killing you when you are timing your kill. The problems are totally connected. Your problem is the cause of the real problem.

Ultimately, Yes, the lower difficulties will have balence issues. They already have balance issues. How many games of bronze get derailed by a single novaguard rushing the spawns? How many games of silver have been wreaked by one shot kill 5 meter proxy mines doing the same things to the same spawns? The Kyrase, how does that work there with what happens in gold going on?

Balance in lower difficulties is much less appriciated then it is in higher difficulties, because those lower difficulties are where you go for casual gameplay, or to feel powerful. Both are great fun because they are more lax as to what works a little bit too well. People are much more willing to accept massive streams of foes vanishing one shot a piece when they only have half as much health to start with.

People go to gold for two things: To farm their unhealthy addiction, or to have a challinging, but fun gameplay experience. Ultimately, only having a few weapons that are gold practical seriously hurts the replayability of group #2's experience, while having a few broken weapons on a difficulty, where say, THE SCIMITAR is broken OP wont really hurt the fanbases experience. Ultimately, the Challange players are the ones who are hurt the most by weapons that are flat out impractical, and at the same time, by the weapons that are flat out awesome. 

Ultimately, almost everything overperforms in the light of bronze, and weapons that are not even workable in gold are still utterly broken in silver. <- This is fine, because this is silver and bronze we are talking about, peoples expectations are not as high for this. Blacking out entire playstyles for gold is what is going to cause the most hurt to the playerbase, because gold is ALL About expectations..

[Krozuhsky]

whateverman7 wrote...

why is it so hard for yall to understand: the game doesnt revolve around gold....once yall accept this, a lot of these kinda threads wont be created

Then by what standards should we judge the effectiveness of weapons? Silver? Bronze?

[DatFeel]

SMG'S are even worse, they are all garbage besides the Hurricane.

[Hypertion]

i think the problem with assult rifles is that they were intended to be the best weapons for pure DPS.

but most are weaker or dead even with this aspect to the single shot weapons..

the average DPS on the assult rifles should be closer to where the Harrier is now, basically needing a 15%-20% increase to the entire weapon class.

[Acktimeus]

im all for the buffing of assault rifles and SMGs. It just feels so wrong that the carnifex and most shotguns out preforms most of them.
most rifles should preform as good as the harrier.