901 réponses à ce sujet

[Rifneno]

TMB903 wrote...

Change it to a 1.75 modifier and increase it's weight so only the Destroyer can use it( It's obvious this gun was meant for him)...I nicknamed my Typhoon "Old Painless" (Predator FTW) and I'll still use it but not as much

I wish people would stop doing this.  BW will only see it as verification that their utterly unwarranted nerf was warranted.  I realize you're trying to negotiate a compromise, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't see it as at least somewhat of an admittance that there should've been a nerf.

[ryoldschool]

Gamemako wrote...

Eric Fagnan wrote...

One of the reasons for this is that the weapon has an inherit 50% damage bonus versus armor, shields, and barriers. This far outclasses other weapons in terms of damage bonuses against resistances.

Holy ****, we've been misinterpreting that the whole time. No wonder I was still crushing things post-nerf.

So the Typhoon is not only hyper-accurate, it deals 50% more DPS against shields, barrier, and armor than the Rev. Oh God. The gun actually needs another nerf...

hyper-accurate, lol  this video I made last night compares Typhoon V to Revenant X.   Perhaps you should select another adj for that statement.

[TMB903]

Rifneno wrote...

TMB903 wrote...

Change it to a 1.75 modifier and increase it's weight so only the Destroyer can use it( It's obvious this gun was meant for him)...I nicknamed my Typhoon "Old Painless" (Predator FTW) and I'll still use it but not as much

I wish people would stop doing this.  BW will only see it as verification that their utterly unwarranted nerf was warranted.  I realize you're trying to negotiate a compromise, but I'd be very surprised if they didn't see it as at least somewhat of an admittance that there should've been a nerf.

oh no believe me I am in the same camp as you regarding the Typhoon...It was an unnecessary nerf on a gun that filled its niche perfectly pre-nerf(the AP reduction was absolutely fine in my opinion)...However BW made the decision to change it to 1.5 and i dont think ordering them to change it back will work to well ...A compromise may be our only option

[xis3]

Rifneno wrote...

LOL. ... Oh, you're serious. ... ROFL. That just makes it funnier.

What's so funny about it ? sorry if i did a bad translation.

[Gamemako]

ryoldschool wrote...

hyper-accurate, lol  this video I made last night compares Typhoon V to Revenant X.   Perhaps you should select another adj for that statement.

I've seen your video and its bizarre attempts to demonstrate inaccuracy while you stand free from cover with an LMG like it's a damn Thompson. Instead, I'll continue to snipe hunters in Vancouver from the AC ducts across the entire map.

[Eckswhyzed]

Gamemako wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

hyper-accurate, lol  this video I made last night compares Typhoon V to Revenant X.   Perhaps you should select another adj for that statement.

I've seen your video and its bizarre attempts to demonstrate inaccuracy while you stand free from cover with an LMG like it's a damn Thompson. Instead, I'll continue to snipe hunters in Vancouver from the AC ducts across the entire map.

This. In fact, any class with an accuracy bonus turns the Typhoon into a fricking laser beam, even when firing out of cover. Nothing like getting the 20 headshot medal faster than the snipers

[ryoldschool]

Gamemako wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

hyper-accurate, lol  this video I made last night compares Typhoon V to Revenant X.   Perhaps you should select another adj for that statement.

I've seen your video and its bizarre attempts to demonstrate inaccuracy while you stand free from cover with an LMG like it's a damn Thompson. Instead, I'll continue to snipe hunters in Vancouver from the AC ducts across the entire map.

I did it to show the difference between the two guns under the same conditions.  If you have a video of you sniping across the map, please post.  Here is Sp3c7eR  video pre-nerf, he is not sniping with it.

[Transairion]

We've done a lot of internal tests on the N7 Typhoon comparing it to other assault rifles and other weapons, and even with the recent nerf it is still incredibly powerful. One of the reasons for this is that the weapon has an inherit 50% damage bonus versus armor, shields, and barriers. This far outclasses other weapons in terms of damage bonuses against resistances. The Revenant, for example, does not get this bonus and does regular damage to armor, shields, and barriers.

If this is the case, and your team finds it so powerful, how come so many people who actually own the Typhoon are complaining about how bad it is now? That's kind of the opposite of what you're saying.

If this bonus vs shields/armor/barriers was already there from the start and makes the Typhoon strong right now, then everyone with a Typhoon would've already been playing with this bonus to begin with... but they're playing with the bonus (even if they don't know about it) and STILL complaining it's worse than the Revenant now... and you're actually considering it for further "balance" too?

You should be rightfully be worried people aren't as excited for this weapon anymore, it was the weapon I wanted most from Earth DLC and it's already been nerfed twice... and your post does not inspire confidence it won't be nerfed AGAIN. Why should I bother trying to get it now if it's just going to be nerfed a 3rd time, and so many people already say it stinks?

This far outclasses other weapons in terms of damage bonuses against resistances.

As far as I know there's only like, 3 weapons in the entire game with actual damage bonuses against resistances. The Reegar is one, and the not-even-released Blood Pack SMG is the other. That's not exactly a lot to compare to...

Modifié par Transairion, 03 août 2012 - 10:30 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Ares Caesar wrote...

He just told you... at least on an N7 Destroyer. 214 bullets is 1 clip for a properly specced Destroyer. 

Ah yes, Devestator mode has ammo capacity increase. That's a shame if before he could use a Mag V extended magazine (180) to destroy a ATLAS it would be better to compare such a clip size.

Still if we assume a Platinum ATLAS has the same health/shields as a Gold one (for convenience sake since I don't have any numbers for Platinum enemies). That's 44094 for an entire ATLAS and 32594 for all shields and half Armor (let's be generous). 
Before that's 44094 / 175 = ~252 average damage per clip, while now that's 32594 / 215 = ~152.
That's a difference of 40%, rather than the 25% that was cut. Considering warm up for Damage is only 0.75 seconds that can't possible account for the difference. 
Something seems off about those numbers. It should be near death according to a 25% cut or Spectre is missing more shoots (shooting from a larger distance).

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 03 août 2012 - 10:40 .

[Gryphon7]

If RNG would give me a damned break, I'd be willing to offer my opinion on the weapon.

As it stands, in games I've played with people who have them, it's not too terrible. I usually beat them regardless...it's quite effective at mowing down mobs though.

[Astartes Marine]

Eric Fagnan wrote...
One of the reasons for this is that the weapon has an inherit 50% damage bonus versus armor, shields, and barriers. This far outclasses other weapons in terms of damage bonuses against resistances. The Revenant, for example, does not get this bonus and does regular damage to armor, shields, and barriers.

So when the Assault Rifle High Velocity Barrel mod is unleashed into the store granting ARs a 90% armor piercing boost what then? 

It just feels that for an Ultra Rare weapon, there's not enough making it FEEL like an ultra rare.

[Ares Caesar]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

Ares Caesar wrote...

He just told you... at least on an N7 Destroyer. 214 bullets is 1 clip for a properly specced Destroyer. 

Ah yes, Devestator mode has ammo capacity increase. That's a shame if before he could use a Mag V extended magazine (180) to destroy a ATLAS it would be better to compare such a clip size.

Still if we assume a Platinum ATLAS has the same health/shields as a Gold one (for convenience sake since I don't have any numbers for Platinum enemies). That's 44094 for an entire ATLAS and 32594 for all shields and half Armor (let's be generous). 
Before that's 44094 / 175 = ~252 average damage per clip, while now that's 32594 / 215 = ~152.
That's a difference of 40%, rather than the 25% that was cut. Considering warm up for Damage is only 0.75 seconds that can't possible account for the difference. 
Something seems off about those numbers. It should be near death according to a 25% cut or Spectre is missing more shoots (shooting from a larger distance).

Its only a "guess" as I'm not him, and havent done the tests myself, but I would assume its the Armor vs lower damage per bullet aspect. With each bullet doing lower damage, its only that much more affected by the -50 per bullet of armor on Gold/Platinum. Seeing as we now know it does not have "innate piercing" (ignores % of armor), that certainly changes how it will react to armor with every nerf to its per bullet damage only being that much more severe.

Thats the real problem with lowering its bullet damage, instead of perhaps lowering its rate of fire or increasing its "ramp up" time. 

[Gamemako]

Transairion wrote...

If this is the case, and your team finds it so powerful, how come so many people who actually own the Typhoon are complaining about how bad it is now? That's kind of the opposite of what you're saying.

*sigh*

You are familiar with the placebo effect, no? The evil opposite is also true, called the nocebo effect. That is, even in the absence of any difference, if people are lead to believe that the difference is there, they will percieve it to be there and react accordingly. These are physical effects manifested purely from expectation -- the perception of reality is more important than the reality.

People want to believe that it is nerfed to uselessness. They were never right, but even theorycrafters thought the gun wasn't incredible anymore, merely good. As it turns out, the gun right now, post-nerf, is in fact quite overpowered. It's amusing to see how much of this is actually perception. Someone with a Typhoon I is in fact outdamaging a Rev X by 20%, and that's in addition to the superior accuracy. That difference grows with level to the point that a Typhoon X is dealing the full 50% on top. A Typhoon X is delivering about 1340 burst DPS at maximum fire rate and damage bonus. For comparison, the Rev is 861 and the also-overpowered Harrier comes in a 1187. These are the numbers now, post-nerf. I'm actually rather shocked to learn this because the DPS it was putting out before is absolutely nuts.

Modifié par Gamemako, 03 août 2012 - 10:55 .

[Sp3c7eR]

 Ok, here it is: Typhoon comparison pre- and post-nerf.

Time taken to kill an Atlas: pre-nerf 6.133 seconds. post-nerf 13.00 seconds (12.25 if you reload cancel). You can see how that impacts gameplay for obvious reasons. Watch side by side comparison - it's pretty interesting to see how big of a nerf this really is.

Equipment: Warp ammo IV, AR rail amp III. Gear: Barrage V. Weapon attachments: Stability damper V and extra clip capacity V. 
Destroyer build same in both.

Video is unlisted so you'll only be able to see it using this link.

[Curtoss]

tMc Tallgeese wrote...

@Eric - Seemed like an overall good rebalance. Do notice the change more so on low level enemies, but then again it is a suppression weapon and boss killer. Still able to do significant damage to Banshees/Primes/Atlas/Brutes/Ravagers without using any amps on the Destroyer, which I imagine the gun was intended for. Was a bit shocked at first when reading the balance changes, but glad to now know about it's reduction % qualities.

Interesting quite a bit of a different response than everyone else. I wonder what the difference was. I havent unlocked it yet but this seems to be the best presented response. It is obvious that a nerf was needed but maybe it was too much. I want to test it.

[ryoldschool]

Sp3c7eR wrote...

 Ok, here it is: Typhoon comparison pre- and post-nerf.

Time taken to kill an Atlas: pre-nerf 6.133 seconds. post-nerf 13.00 seconds (12.25 if you reload cancel). You can see how that impacts gameplay for obvious reasons. Watch side by side comparison - it's pretty interesting to see how big of a nerf this really is.

Equipment: Warp ammo IV, AR rail amp III. Gear: Barrage V. Weapon attachments: Stability damper V and extra clip capacity V. 
Destroyer build same in both.

Video is unlisted so you'll only be able to see it using this link.

Thanks for posting.

Edit: does not look like a  nocebo effect to me.

Modifié par ryoldschool, 03 août 2012 - 11:00 .

[Velocithon]

I think it's fine. While I don't have it yet, I've watched the vids and it's slow start up time means it's not great against enemies that surprise you, since you must fire multiple rounds before it gets going.

Bottom line though, it's an UR and while very effective, it isn't a great gun to run around with killing enemies. It's good for taking cover and just unloading from cover. So if you want to change the gun, how about making it wildly inaccurate when NOT in cover, but once in cover give it the current in-cover accuracy it has? Nothing else would change by the way (damage and everything stays the same)
edit: Basically treat it like a real life LMG. You really don't run around with it because it's heavy and isn't precise. Take cover, and it's a lethal much more precise weapon.

Modifié par Velocithon, 03 août 2012 - 11:04 .

[Ares Caesar]

ryoldschool wrote...

Sp3c7eR wrote...

 Ok, here it is: Typhoon comparison pre- and post-nerf.

Time taken to kill an Atlas: pre-nerf 6.133 seconds. post-nerf 13.00 seconds (12.25 if you reload cancel). You can see how that impacts gameplay for obvious reasons. Watch side by side comparison - it's pretty interesting to see how big of a nerf this really is.

Equipment: Warp ammo IV, AR rail amp III. Gear: Barrage V. Weapon attachments: Stability damper V and extra clip capacity V. 
Destroyer build same in both.

Video is unlisted so you'll only be able to see it using this link.

Thanks for posting.

Agreed, thanks for the effort put into the comparison.

Given that we know the gun does NOT have "innate piercing" do you think this could also attribute to why there is such a drastic change? Obviously the damage drop alone is going to affect it some, but it seems like once you hit armor it only becomes that much more pronounced because of the lowering of its per bullet damage.

[Curtoss]

Sp3c7eR wrote...

 Ok, here it is: Typhoon comparison pre- and post-nerf.

Time taken to kill an Atlas: pre-nerf 6.133 seconds. post-nerf 13.00 seconds (12.25 if you reload cancel). You can see how that impacts gameplay for obvious reasons. Watch side by side comparison - it's pretty interesting to see how big of a nerf this really is.

Equipment: Warp ammo IV, AR rail amp III. Gear: Barrage V. Weapon attachments: Stability damper V and extra clip capacity V. 
Destroyer build same in both.

Video is unlisted so you'll only be able to see it using this link.

wow that is a really good video. It would be interesting to see a revenant one next to it. I defintally believe that a nerf was necessary from the video but maybe the nerf was a little too much maybe they should meet in the middle

[Poison_Berrie]

Ares Caesar wrote...

Its only a "guess" as I'm not him, and havent done the tests myself, but I would assume its the Armor vs lower damage per bullet aspect. With each bullet doing lower damage, its only that much more affected by the -50 per bullet of armor on Gold/Platinum. Seeing as we now know it does not have "innate piercing" (ignores % of armor), that certainly changes how it will react to armor with every nerf to its per bullet damage only being that much more severe.

Thats the real problem with lowering its bullet damage, instead of perhaps lowering its rate of fire or increasing its "ramp up" time. 

Ah yes, off course. Why didn't I think of that.

EDIT: Perhaps the answer is to provide some innate armor ignoring or a higher Armor multiplier.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 03 août 2012 - 11:07 .

[xis3]

13 sec is still correct for a long range build and solo, can you try with maximum damage close range please ? ( EB + AR V )

[rupinderpaul]

Sp3c7eR wrote...

 Ok, here it is: Typhoon comparison pre- and post-nerf.

Time taken to kill an Atlas: pre-nerf 6.133 seconds. post-nerf 13.00 seconds (12.25 if you reload cancel). You can see how that impacts gameplay for obvious reasons. Watch side by side comparison - it's pretty interesting to see how big of a nerf this really is.

Equipment: Warp ammo IV, AR rail amp III. Gear: Barrage V. Weapon attachments: Stability damper V and extra clip capacity V. 
Destroyer build same in both.

Video is unlisted so you'll only be able to see it using this link.

Thanks for taking the time to create and post this Sp3c7er.

Hopefully, it'll put to rest the doubters who thought that the nerf wasn't significant.

[Eelectrica]

Gamemako wrote...

Transairion wrote...

If this is the case, and your team finds it so powerful, how come so many people who actually own the Typhoon are complaining about how bad it is now? That's kind of the opposite of what you're saying.

*sigh*

You are familiar with the placebo effect, no? The evil opposite is also true, called the nocebo effect. That is, even in the absence of any difference, if people are lead to believe that the difference is there, they will percieve it to be there and react accordingly. These are physical effects manifested purely from expectation -- the perception of reality is more important than the reality.

People want to believe that it is nerfed to uselessness. They were never right, but even theorycrafters thought the gun wasn't incredible anymore, merely good. As it turns out, the gun right now, post-nerf, is in fact quite overpowered. It's amusing to see how much of this is actually perception. Someone with a Typhoon I is in fact outdamaging a Rev X by 20%, and that's in addition to the superior accuracy. That difference grows with level to the point that a Typhoon X is dealing the full 50% on top. A Typhoon X is delivering about 1340 burst DPS at maximum fire rate and damage bonus. For comparison, the Rev is 861 and the also-overpowered Harrier comes in a 1187. These are the numbers now, post-nerf. I'm actually rather shocked to learn this because the DPS it was putting out before is absolutely nuts.

Your post is looking quite.... Well someone can fill in the missing word and clever isn't the word I'd use.
Just been proven the typhoon was nerfed a lot more than most people thought.

Modifié par Eelectrica, 03 août 2012 - 11:07 .

[BabyfaceAssassin]

I'm a bit confused team Bioware. Shouldn't ultra-rare weapons be a lot more powerful than the rest? We finally had an N7 weapon worth its rarity, but you guys nerfed it because it was too good (Balancing according to Bioware... yeah right )
Ultra-rare weapons are pretty worthless on Platinum.

[Transairion]

*sigh*

You are familiar with the placebo effect, no? The evil opposite is also true, called the nocebo effect. That is, even in the absence of any difference, if people are lead to believe that the difference is there, they will percieve it to be there and react accordingly. These are physical effects manifested purely from expectation -- the perception of reality is more important than the reality.

People want to believe that it is nerfed to uselessness. They were never right, but even theorycrafters thought the gun wasn't incredible anymore, merely good. As it turns out, the gun right now, post-nerf, is in fact quite overpowered. It's amusing to see how much of this is actually perception. Someone with a Typhoon I is in fact outdamaging a Rev X by 20%, and that's in addition to the superior accuracy. That difference grows with level to the point that a Typhoon X is dealing the full 50% on top. A Typhoon X is delivering about 1340 burst DPS at maximum fire rate and damage bonus. For comparison, the Rev is 861 and the also-overpowered Harrier comes in a 1187. These are the numbers now, post-nerf. I'm actually rather shocked to learn this because the DPS it was putting out before is absolutely nuts.

So basically your point is "there was a damage bonus we didn't know about so you're all wrong"? Even though the gun had this feature since release... sorry, but if a LOT of people who own it complain about it being bad, then they're probably basing it on SOMETHING. Only the people without would reliably suffer from herd-mentality.

Next you'll tell me the Krysae is still the best SR in the game and we're just mindless sheep following the herd thought of it being bad?