49 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

zeypher wrote...

LOL good backup for harrier the geth
cockroach smg with a ultra light mod. It backs up harrier perfectly and
has a ton of ammo if u ever need it it.

cockroach, hur hur hur

I think the problem with the plasma as a backup is that it really more of a 'main weapon' - you can get some excellent damage out of it but its more or less a weaker, SMG version of Particle Rifle - its best suited for sustained firing rather than filling in the Harrier's gaps. The Carnifex at least can put down any target rapidly with a few shots so you can quickly get more ammo to keep on harrier'ing.

All-a-Mort wrote...
Think it's going to be caster class exclusive for me, replacing the Vindicator for when I need more firepower and can use biotics or tech to cover the ammo scarceness.

That's a very good point - the Harrier is essentially an upgrade of the Vindicator, that just happens to be better than most ARs.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Yuanrang wrote...

A large majority of guns in this game is initially horrible or ineffective. It is designed like that, because as you get new ranks and also get stronger mods that can patch up the weak sides of each gun, they become either mediocre, good or godlike.

These "design" choices are major nerfs to weapon classes. It seems like ME3 is screaming at the player to be a caster.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 09 août 2012 - 08:26 .

[zeypher]

Yup, in terms of assault rifles out of the 12 or 13 80% of them are downright useless.

[godlike13]

zeypher wrote...

LOL good backup for harrier the geth cockroach smg with a ultra light mod. It backs up harrier perfectly and has a ton of ammo if u ever need it it.

Blood Pack SMG works really well too. Its like backing up the Harrier with a better Revenant. Hell its even arguably performs better than the Harrier mid-short range.

Modifié par godlike13, 10 août 2012 - 04:26 .

[alternatefallen]

After leaving Mars I just went "screw this noise" and imported my ME3 vanguard save so I could choose decent weapons to start out with. The only downside is a level 57 import just feels like cheating, even on insanity. Everything just melts.

Neofelis Nebulosa wrote...

Well, the thing is that the weapons in ME3 are less about being powerful specialists among their roles, but most of it is the powercreep that comes with progressing in the game.

Just an example for ARs:

Vindicator/Valkyrie/Argus should be battle rifles with mainly weight and raw power differences to accomodate your playstyle preferences. Lots of stopping power, decent allround damage, though ineffective for when you need lots of damage fast.

Mattock/Saber should be designated marksman rifles. Accurate and incredibly devastating if you score headshots, but lacking in CQC and burst damage

Avenger/Phaeston/Revenant should be the bullet hoses. Lots of ammunition to simply throw a wall of projectiles at your enemy. Perfect for CQC and lots of burst damage if you hit stuff with it, but otherwise lacking whenever you got targets at a distance.

Weapons like the GPR and the PPR then would suit very specific roles, like shield/barrier toasting and excell at those, whilst having mild capabilities in other areas, for those weapons being lowpowered bullet hose/battle rifle hybrids with good accuracy and RoF.

But instead we have a couple of good weapons, some that don't suck arse and those that are useless from the point on they are introduced.

These ideas are aces. Reads like a good callback to ME2 weapons, giving them tactical pros and cons. If nothing else, it would be a nice change from equipping the Mattock or the GPS or the Carnifex and melting the hell out of everything ever. 

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

These "design" choices are major nerfs to weapon classes. It seems like ME3 is screaming at the player to be a caster. 

 

I feel you on that. In terms of sheer damage output, mobility, and crowd control, every other class in ME3 has advantages over the soldier. Have fun running out of ammo every five minutes if you can't tech burst or bio' splode things. *facepalm*

[capn233]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

These "design" choices are major nerfs to weapon classes. It seems like ME3 is screaming at the player to be a caster.

Although interestingly people are complaining that guns are better than powers in MP.

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Yuanrang wrote...

A large majority of guns in this game is initially horrible or ineffective. It is designed like that, because as you get new ranks and also get stronger mods that can patch up the weak sides of each gun, they become either mediocre, good or godlike.

These "design" choices are major nerfs to weapon classes. It seems like ME3 is screaming at the player to be a caster.

I don't agree with this - in every single weapon class there is at least one or two (perhaps more) guns that stand out as being state-of-the-art and any weapons-orientated class can get their hands on them - the fact that ~80% of them are garbage is no different to the situation you typically find in RPGs. Since you can only carry one weapon per slot, I don't really see how the fact that there's lots of junk nerfs the weapon-based classes. Just pick the best for each slot.

A soldier marching around carrying an Adas/Harrier/PR, Valiant/Black Widow/Krysae, Graal/Reegar/Wraith, Carnifex/Paladin/Scorpion and a Punisher/Hurricane/Hornet is going to melt everything.

[JaegerBane]

alternatefallen wrote...
I feel you on that. In terms of sheer damage output, mobility, and crowd control, every other class in ME3 has advantages over the soldier. Have fun running out of ammo every five minutes if you can't tech burst or bio' splode things. *facepalm*

Somewhat - the soldier still has the best *weapon* damage output (well, perhaps not the infiltrator using a high spike DPS weapon, but then thats to be expected). If you're arguing that other classes can pull ahead in terms of overall/power based damage... I'd question why you're surprised by this. The soldier has never been a powers-based character. The only difference in ME3 is that they don't have god mode on a 3-sec recharge, so I guess it would look a little nerfed.

[devon c greenwell]

@JaegerBane finally some love for the solder! Want a challenge on insanity choose solder. Just got the new dlc. Harrier, blood pack, wraith, and paladin. Put a scope on paladin and it kinda turns it in to a sniper. Tell ya what, haven't died this much in the game ever! Had to completely change play style. But ive done all but hit Cerberus station run. That ones later today after work and before fartin around with this weekends operation

[zeypher]

personally i prefer my soldier than any other class. My soldier in defender armor plus a big AR with explosive rounds. FOR TEH EMPERAH!!!!!!

[JaegerBane]

zeypher wrote...

personally i prefer my soldier than any other class. My soldier in defender armor plus a big AR with explosive rounds. FOR TEH EMPERAH!!!!!!

Pffft. You strange Gue'la.

Particle Rifle, Hurricane and Black Widow = Plasma Rifle, Burst Cannon, Railgun.

For the Greater Good.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 10 août 2012 - 10:46 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

JaegerBane wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Yuanrang wrote...

A large majority of guns in this game is initially horrible or ineffective. It is designed like that, because as you get new ranks and also get stronger mods that can patch up the weak sides of each gun, they become either mediocre, good or godlike.

These "design" choices are major nerfs to weapon classes. It seems like ME3 is screaming at the player to be a caster.

I don't agree with this - in every single weapon class there is at least one or two (perhaps more) guns that stand out as being state-of-the-art and any weapons-orientated class can get their hands on them - the fact that ~80% of them are garbage is no different to the situation you typically find in RPGs. Since you can only carry one weapon per slot, I don't really see how the fact that there's lots of junk nerfs the weapon-based classes. Just pick the best for each slot.

A soldier marching around carrying an Adas/Harrier/PR, Valiant/Black Widow/Krysae, Graal/Reegar/Wraith, Carnifex/Paladin/Scorpion and a Punisher/Hurricane/Hornet is going to melt everything.

Hierachy always exists but the disparity between the guns was small in ME2. Even the starting weapons weren't total junk. Just compare the ME2 Avenger to the ME3 Avenger. The latter has less damage, less accuracy, less RoF, less magazine size, less reserve ammo (400 in ME2), but it weighs very little (it was balanced around casters). ME2 had better gun balance.

Moreover the mod system is something I don't like at all.  Many of the inate strengths of the weapons are gone and must be added piecemeal. The weapons in ME3 feel weaker than in any other Mass Effect game, imo. It's either elite gun or junk.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 10 août 2012 - 06:37 .

[zeypher]

Actually i agree with you. This is true with me3 guns as they lost the bonuses against defenses. For example in me2 the dmg of the collector rifle and revenant was nearly the same, but rev was a good option because it had more bonuses against defenses. That doesnt exist any more and still rev and collector rifle dmg is pretty much the same.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

zeypher wrote...

Actually i agree with you. This is true with me3 guns as they lost the bonuses against defenses. For example in me2 the dmg of the collector rifle and revenant was nearly the same, but rev was a good option because it had more bonuses against defenses. That doesnt exist any more and still rev and collector rifle dmg is pretty much the same.

I still feel ME3 lost a lot for ditching ME2's combat system. Everything dies too easily to mere DPS and power combos; no more need for tactics or timing for CC'ing and whatnot.

JaegerBane wrote...

zeypher wrote...

personally i prefer my soldier than any other class. My soldier in defender armor plus a big AR with explosive rounds. FOR TEH EMPERAH!!!!!!

Pffft. You strange Gue'la.

Particle Rifle, Hurricane and Black Widow = Plasma Rifle, Burst Cannon, Railgun.

For the Greater Good.

So what's Combat Roll? JSJ??  A.Rush = FoF??


Reegar = FB??

Modifié par Locutus_of_BORG, 10 août 2012 - 06:47 .

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
Hierachy always exists but the disparity between the guns was small in ME2. Even the starting weapons weren't total junk. Just compare the ME2 Avenger to the ME3 Avenger. The latter has less damage, less accuracy, less RoF, less magazine size, less reserve ammo (400 in ME2), but it weighs very little (it was balanced around casters). ME2 had great gun balance.

I'm sorry, but every single thing there doesn't correspond with the data.

First of all, the ME2 Avenger had some of the lowest DPS in the game. It did so little damage that it fell behind the Predator. It was virtually useless for every class.
I'm not sure how you've managed to figure out that the ME3 Avenger does less damage than the ME2 one - the damage model has changed and there are very few enemies that are common to both games.
The comment about weight doesn't make any sense with regard to being balanced around casters - *all* classes suffer cooldown increases from weight and the Soldier is the least affected by weapon weight, so the assertion that the soldier benefits the least from a light weapon doesn't follow any logic. Surely the fact that they handle weight the best means that it affects their cooldowns the least.

For that matter, why is the Avenger relevant to the soldier's percieved nerf? Its the basic assualt rifle in the game, why does its stats have any relevance to the class that is most orientated towards using the heaviest and most capable weapons in the game? The Avenger's stats should have nothing to do with the soldier.

Moreover the mod system is something I don't like at all.  Many of the inate strengths of the weapons are gone and must be added piecemeal. The weapons in ME3 feel weaker than in any other Mass Effect game, imo. It's either elite gun or junk.

The loss of mods in ME2 was almost universally disliked. Frankly, I don't understand why you'd think giving the player more customisability is a bad thing.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 10 août 2012 - 06:50 .

[JaegerBane]

zeypher wrote...

Actually i agree with you. This is true with me3 guns as they lost the bonuses against defenses. For example in me2 the dmg of the collector rifle and revenant was nearly the same, but rev was a good option because it had more bonuses against defenses.

Uh... well, the Revenant did slightly more damage than the Collector rifle per round, but the gun's higher damage was down to the fact it fired at a 50% faster rate from a clip that was over three times the size. It had very little to do with its multiplier against certain defences.

(IIRC the Revenant's multiplier against shields and barriers was 1.20x as oppose to 1.25x, and 1.4x rather than 1.25x against armour... these kind of differences do not translate into anything noticable in game...)

Modifié par JaegerBane, 10 août 2012 - 07:03 .

[capn233]

JaegerBane wrote...

I'm sorry, but every single thing there doesn't correspond with the data.

First of all, the ME2 Avenger had some of the lowest DPS in the game. It did so little damage that it fell behind the Predator. It was virtually useless for every class.
I'm not sure how you've managed to figure out that the ME3 Avenger does less damage than the ME2 one - the damage model has changed and there are very few enemies that are common to both games.

Avenger isn't too bad if you use it after you get some assault rifle upgrades.  Which many people don't do, because they tended to drop the starting guns in ME2 after getting the "upgraded weapon" and forgot about the lower level ones.  Sure, it was crap compared to the massively imba Mattock on classes that could slow time, but it was decent.  Just as the Shuriken was maligned by many people, even though it was a very capable weapon if you could use it right.

On to the next part, it is easy to figure out what weapons are "underpowered" in this game using a little math.  I in fact did this in the MP section with a thread called "Revenge of ME2 Weapons" where I kept Carnifex damage constant and rescaled the damage of all the other ME2 guns.  Interestingly, the Avenger actually does more scaled damage per shot in ME3 (by a small amount) but the massive drop in rate of fire is why its relative DPS is much lower in ME3.  In fact they botched the design of near every ME2 gun that got imported into ME3, likely so it would be easier to make "new" guns that were decent.  I freely admit that something like the Mattock needed to be adjusted since it was a bit too good if you had time compression, but that was not the norm.

Revenge of ME2 Weapons

[Binary_Helix 1]

JaegerBane wrote...

The comment about weight doesn't make any sense with regard to being balanced around casters - *all* classes suffer cooldown increases from weight and the Soldier is the least affected by weapon weight, so the assertion that the soldier benefits the least from a light weapon doesn't follow any logic. Surely the fact that they handle weight the best means that it affects their cooldowns the least.

For that matter, why is the Avenger relevant to the soldier's percieved nerf? Its the basic assualt rifle in the game, why does its stats have any relevance to the class that is most orientated towards using the heaviest and most capable weapons in the game? The Avenger's stats should have nothing to do with the soldier.

The Avenger's stats are important because the ARs have been the soldier's bread and butter since the start. They carry a unqiue signifigance to the class. Everybody else needed to use bonuses to get them and even then certain ARs like ME2's revenant were off limits. Removing this exclusiveity and rebalancing ARs around other classes was a big loss for soldiers. Moreover I don't agree that soldier must use heavy weapons. There are different types of soldiers like commandos who use light weapon loads vs shock troopers who use the heavier ones. I personally got a lot of use out of the ME2 Avenger.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 10 août 2012 - 07:52 .

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...
Avenger isn't too bad if you use it after you get some assault rifle upgrades.  Which many people don't do, because they tended to drop the starting guns in ME2 after getting the "upgraded weapon" and forgot about the lower level ones.  Sure, it was crap compared to the massively imba Mattock on classes that could slow time, but it was decent.  Just as the Shuriken was maligned by many people, even though it was a very capable weapon if you could use it right.

I think that's the part I disagree with - the Avenger wasn't terrible after it was upgraded, but the upgrades applied to everything else in its category, so its actual performance boost still lagged behind everything else. No-one who was after optimisation ever took AR on the Collector ship to use the Avenger - at release it was the Vindicator and after Firepower DLC it was the Mattock, and some Soldiers still picked up the Revenant.

The point is that there was never a good reason to use it after other options became available, so I didn't understand why BinaryHelix considered its stats so important.

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
The Avenger's stats are important because the ARs have been the soldier's bread and butter since the start. They carry a unqiue signifigance to the class. Everybody else needed to use bonuses to get them and even then certain ARs like ME2's revenant were off limits. Removing this exclusiveity and rebalancing ARs around other classes was a big loss for soldiers.

I think the problem is you're using theorycrafting and opinion and trying to attach that to stats. The concept that only soldiers used assault rifles never really made much sense as they were also presented as the basic weapons of the mass effect universe - everyone was seen using them so they didn't really fit the concept of a specialist weapon. Bioware found this out from a gameplay perspective too, as SMGs were pressganged into this role and the only result was that Bioware had to release an SMG that was an AR in all but name to provide a bit of varierty to what people were picking on the Collector Ship - up until the locust was released, most were simply picking the Vindicator.

As for it being a 'loss' for soldiers... you still haven't explained how ARs were 'rebalanced' around other classes. Dropping weights doesn't count as that affects all classes and affects soldiers the least.

Moreover I don't agree that soldier must use heavy weapons. There are different types of soldiers like commandos who use light weapon loads vs shock troopers who use the heavier ones. I personally got a lot of use out of the ME2 Avenger.

Then I would question whether you're playing the right class. Using a light weapons load on a class who's main strength was to be able to carry the heaviest weapons load is simply gimping yourself, its a bit like saying there's Vanguards who use Charge and Vanguards who don't. If the soldier was supposed to carry light weapon loads, why do they have three class-exclusive weapons that are noted as being the heaviest in the game?

There's nothing wrong with intentionally gimping your character in an SP game for flavour or RP reasons, but it does mean that you can't justifiably complain they're not powerful enough.

As I said before, the soldier is the class best suited for handling multiple massive weapons (by virtue of the fact that the majority of their powers aren't cooldown bases) and its also the class that handles the best weight-to-cooldown ratio bu virtue of their higher weight limit. If you want something that isn't one of those advantages then, ultimately, you're playing the wrong class.

It's worth pointing out that if your issues are purely based on how unlike the ME3 soldier is in comparison to ME2, then that's likely because the ME2 soldier was flat-out broken. Its entire playstyle didn't change at all no matter the difficulty level and did everything - damage, defence piercing, speedruns, crowd control, etc - the best. Anything remotely balanced is always going to look nerfed into oblivion in that context. Doesn't mean its actually weak.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 11 août 2012 - 12:46 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

ME2's Avenger magazine size and reserve ammo was much larger than compared to now which is half that. It''s rate of fire and DPS took a big nerf as a consequence. A weak but otherwise light weapon is better suited towards casters rather than soldiers. Vindicator isn't a whole lot better, Mattock got nerfed as well, so did the Revenant. Many of these guns don't even play like their ME2 variants at all. They each took big hits in either RoF, stability, accuracy, magazine size, or reserve ammo. They were balanced around everybody rather than being soldier oriented weapons like in ME2. That was a mistake, imo.

ME2 soldier wasn't broken. I'd contend casters are broken in ME3 but you're silent about them. They can use any gun they like, they can sprint now (another soldier exclusive gone) and they can tear apart enemies with powers. The power damage even scales with difficulty unlike the weapon damage plus they can use powers from the start unlike soldiers who have to wait until they get decent weapons. The MP is a good example. Casters had to get their power damage nerfed while soldiers and ARs have been the most buffed class and weapon type. I recall a while back everybody avoided soldiers like the plague.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 11 août 2012 - 10:57 .

[capn233]

JaegerBane wrote...

I think that's the part I disagree with - the Avenger wasn't terrible after it was upgraded, but the upgrades applied to everything else in its category, so its actual performance boost still lagged behind everything else. No-one who was after optimisation ever took AR on the Collector ship to use the Avenger - at release it was the Vindicator and after Firepower DLC it was the Mattock, and some Soldiers still picked up the Revenant.

The point is that there was never a good reason to use it after other options became available, so I didn't understand why BinaryHelix considered its stats so important.

It was actually easier to use than either the Vindicator, Mattock, or even the Revenant which is why there were a few people that still used it.  At the least it had better ammo capacity than the Vindicator or Mattock.  Personally, I didn't care for it, but the point is that even if it wasn't optimal in ME2, it was still decent.  Not great, but decent.  In ME3 it is woeful.  The only way to make it not completley useless is to put Disruptor Ammo on it for Tech Bursts or go Incendiary Explosive Ammo in SP... but you could do the same thing using various other weapons.

[knightnblu]

Agreed. Most of the pre-order stuff is crap.

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

ME2's Avenger magazine size and reserve ammo was much larger than compared to now which is half that. It''s rate of fire and DPS took a big nerf as a consequence. A weak but otherwise light weapon is better suited towards casters rather than soldiers. Vindicator isn't a whole lot better, Mattock got nerfed as well, so did the Revenant. Many of these guns don't even play like their ME2 variants at all. They each took big hits in either RoF, stability, accuracy, magazine size, or reserve ammo. They were balanced around everybody rather than being soldier oriented weapons like in ME2. That was a mistake, imo.

I still don't understand why this is an issue specifically with the soldier, though. So the ME3 ARs got nerfed... why does that affect soldiers more than any other class? They don't even have the AR slot exclusively from the start of the game anymore, as you say? Why aren't you using something powerful?

I'd contend casters are broken in ME3 but you're silent about them.

I don't think its fair to say I'm 'silent' on them, I hadn't mentioned them purely because I didn't see how that was relevant. Since you ask, I'd absolutely agree that casters are well ahead and Engineers and Adepts in particular are broken - 200% cooldown reductions and infinte explosions, sure, that's crazy - the only reason I've stuck with my Adept is that I find him as fun as he was back in ME2, the only difference was that I don't need to rely on bonus powers this time.

But that's beside the point - the fact casters are broken doesn't somehow mean soldiers are underpowered, anymore than it meant ME2 adepts were underpowered.

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...

It was actually easier to use than either the Vindicator, Mattock, or even the Revenant which is why there were a few people that still used it.  At the least it had better ammo capacity than the Vindicator or Mattock.  Personally, I didn't care for it, but the point is that even if it wasn't optimal in ME2, it was still decent.  Not great, but decent.

This is what I'm not getting, you're saying it was decent despite the fact that it was bottom of the scale for DPS and took ages to kill everything. It may have been easy to use, sure, but... it took longer to kill stuff than everything else. By that logic there were no bad weapons in the game. The ammo capacity argument... I'm not even sure that it holds water, as it typically required nearly full clips to take down enemies on Insanity... it may have been able to hold lots, but it needed lots.

Besides, AR ammo in ME2 was a non-issue, as they gained so much from each ammo drop. Just look at how ammo capacity 'balanced' the Mattock.

I still don't understand how this is related to soldiers, though. Does anyone even use the Avenger in ME3?