170 réponses à ce sujet

[Variasaber]

Well this thread went headfirst into hell.

Tac Cloak is fine as it is and needs to stay as it is. If it's not working for you, you're not using it right and need to either learn how to use it or find a different class. If you think it's overpowered, you are everything that is wrong with the ME3 MP community and I question your sanity.

[XxIveGotKrabsxX]

I personally think its not a bug. The Vorcha Flamer does the same exact thing. If you turn it on then turn it right back off, its fully recharged it half a second. Only when you let the flamer run its full course is when it takes the full recharge speed.

[NuclearTech76]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

I play damage or duration depending on what the team needs and usually I am in and out of cloak pretty quick but there are times that demand you to be in cloak longer.

[robarcool]

Variasaber wrote...

Well this thread went headfirst into hell.

Tac Cloak is fine as it is and needs to stay as it is. If it's not working for you, you're not using it right and need to either learn how to use it or find a different class. If you think it's overpowered, you are everything that is wrong with the ME3 MP community and I question your sanity.

Too harsh mate. I do not agree with this thread, but what you said seems harsh.

[Ashen One]

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

Modifié par Ashen Earth, 08 août 2012 - 06:58 .

[Poison_Berrie]

billy the squid wrote...

Because the sniper rifles were based around the huge damage boost in the 6th evolution of Tac cloak. which subsequently got nerfed. When the Krysae broke the damn weapon class. By functioning as the finger of God.

There were more problems with TC than what the Krysae was doing with it.
But theit gives a clear picture of what was wrong isn't there. By virtue of the boost Infiltrators got, the weapon itself was underwhelming. You admit yourself latter.
Also, just so it's clear, it's multiplicative bonus. Before you were doing 40% extra on top of your total damage, now that's still a quarter extra from your total damage.

[NuclearTech76]

If there is a gap between infiltrators and other classes at this point, I would say it is rather small. To "balance" the class any further would probably break it.

[TheKillerAngel]

Booshnickins wrote...

I love how I'm being called stubborn simply for asking you guys to show me proof that's backed by a developer. I guess you people think that's how it works in court cases. The prosecutor walks in and states their case, then provides no further evidence to back their claim and then rests. Sorry that's not how it works.

I would simply like to see a developer back up the claim that it IS in fact working as intended. To me it just doesn't seem that way. Having a random guy on the internet say he looked at some coding on his computer is in no way proof. All of you are so sure you're correct, yet nobody has any concrete evidence to prove that. So how am I being any more stubborn than the rest of you?

Does this shut you up? I remember posts on TC's mechanics from WAYYYY long ago.

http://social.biowar...ex/9255943&lf=8

Manveer Heir wrote...

3 seconds in the minimum cloak recharge time. Max is whatever you see on the bar. Linearly interpolate on a line from 0 to max with how long you are in cloak to figure out how long the recharge will be. If it is less than 3 seconds, then make it 3 seconds. That should be your calculation. Hope it helps.

Manveer Heir wrote...

Cloak is a special case since its recharge time is dependent on how long you cloaked for. Your recharge speed upgrades reduce that maximum, and the speed the power recharges will be faster (basically view it as a linear graph from 0 to max recharge speed and your recharge time will map somewhere on that dependent on how long you cloaked). So upgrading the recharge speed on cloak will mean that recharges are faster in all cases, but not necessarily the exact number you see on the bar.

I'm not sure if that answers your question...

[ArtGerhardt]

Cool down makes a huge difference if you spec your TC to use one extra power before uncloaking. The Shadow works great with a CD over 130%, you can use electric slash almost immediately after you use shadow strike, and stay cloaked the whole time.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Ashen Earth wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

It's a perfectly-valid claim.  Tac Cloak by definition is less affected by weapon weight than most other powers in the game.  Are you really arguing against this?  The only time Tac Cloak will match its stated cooldown is if you use up the entire duration, correct?

Please stop trolling and think about what you're writing for a second.

[DeathIsHere]

Booshnickins wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

A reduction in base cooldown would be fine.  The thing I find most absurd is that an Infiltrator doing objectives has a significantly longer cooldown than a Infiltrator firing off 180% damage Claymore shots plus a Prox Mine.

You're talking about somebody using 10% of their cloak vs somebody using 100% of it.

On my duration Infiltrators, I can sit in cloak for 5 seconds with my Claymore and still only take a 3 second cooldown. My damage Infiltrators would lose their cloak and take a 6 second cooldown at that point.

A reduction in base cooldown would need to make it ~3 seconds anyway which wouldn't change much except duration Infiltrators doing objectives, and the people who carry 2 heavy weapons.

Booshnickins wrote...

The fact is, you know it's a bug and are too dependant on it to be able to adapt if they actually fix it. Admit it. 

 

It's not a bug, it's intended.

I would like to see an actual post from a Developer that says that it's working exactly as intended.

There's been multiple. Go equip a javelin and a claymore and use Flamer on a Vorcha Sentinel/Soldier, then hit the button again quicky. Tell me how long your cooldown is (it'll be the lowest possible cooldown, likely 3 seconds). This is a feature. Why would you be forced to take the full recharge speed of a 5-10 second long power if you only use it for a second or two?

Just saying, the fact that you're also calling somebody out and saying they're "dependent" on it and asking for them to admit it doesn't paint you in a good light. Do you know that person? Have you played with them? Or are you just attacking them because they disagree with you? I hate that.

Modifié par DeathIsHere, 08 août 2012 - 07:09 .

[billy the squid]

Poison_Berrie wrote...

billy the squid wrote...

Because the sniper rifles were based around the huge damage boost in the 6th evolution of Tac cloak. which subsequently got nerfed. When the Krysae broke the damn weapon class. By functioning as the finger of God.

There were more problems with TC than what the Krysae was doing with it.
But theit gives a clear picture of what was wrong isn't there. By virtue of the boost Infiltrators got, the weapon itself was underwhelming. You admit yourself latter.
Also, just so it's clear, it's multiplicative bonus. Before you were doing 40% extra on top of your total damage, now that's still a quarter extra from your total damage.

Yeah, not even mentioning the 8 secnfds of base tac cloak that damage spec infiltrators got. I think honestly, that needed to be toned down to what we have now. So there is an actual choice between the damage and duration now in terms of DPS vs duration.

[Ashen One]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

It's a perfectly-valid claim.  Tac Cloak by definition is less affected by weapon weight than most other powers in the game.  Are you really arguing against this?

Nice straw man. My arguement was that damage infiltrators are more affected by weapon weight than duration infiltrators, due to the mechanics of Tactical Cloak in response to your post that damage Infiltrators were less affected by weapon weight than Duration Infiltrators. I never said anything about other powers, my argument was about TC, and TC alone. Is that what you do whenever you make a post that's wrong? Instead of admitting that you're wrong, you try to divert attention from it, misconstrue other people's arguments and create your own argument to refute?

For the record, you've still ignored my points.

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
Please stop trolling and think about what you're writing for a second.

The irony, it burns.

Modifié par Ashen Earth, 08 août 2012 - 07:10 .

[robarcool]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

It's a perfectly-valid claim.  Tac Cloak by definition is less affected by weapon weight than most other powers in the game.  Are you really arguing against this?  The only time Tac Cloak will match its stated cooldown is if you use up the entire duration, correct?

Please stop trolling and think about what you're writing for a second.

While the claim is itself valid, it doesn't give the complete picture. Sniper rifles, especially single shot are not powerful enough (thanks to shield gate) and as people have pointed out, they were most likely designed keping in mind the astounding bonus they got from cloak. The fact that cloak breaks after shooting a power or a shot (yeah, there is a little delay or the multiple shot snipers wouldn't be effective) seems to be a counter balance to the fact that it gives a huge damage bonus. TC is designed to have a spike of damage rather than DOT powers like biotics and techs, or even the continuous damage from soldiers. Plain and simple.

Modifié par robarcool, 08 août 2012 - 07:11 .

[Sacramentum]

The inf makes a trade off. If he packs heavy, then he HAS to remain in cloak for as little time as possible. And if he usese the cloak to revive or grab an objective, he has a longer cd.
Its fine as is.

[spudspot]

TheKillerAngel wrote...

*snip*

Well I haven't seen that dude posting for quite a while now. Maybe he isn't a dev anymore. Who knows?

No honestly: That was priceless! 

[CmnDwnWrkn]

DeathIsHere wrote...

Booshnickins wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

A reduction in base cooldown would be fine.  The thing I find most absurd is that an Infiltrator doing objectives has a significantly longer cooldown than a Infiltrator firing off 180% damage Claymore shots plus a Prox Mine.

You're talking about somebody using 10% of their cloak vs somebody using 100% of it.

On my duration Infiltrators, I can sit in cloak for 5 seconds with my Claymore and still only take a 3 second cooldown. My damage Infiltrators would lose their cloak and take a 6 second cooldown at that point.

A reduction in base cooldown would need to make it ~3 seconds anyway which wouldn't change much except duration Infiltrators doing objectives, and the people who carry 2 heavy weapons.

Booshnickins wrote...

The fact is, you know it's a bug and are too dependant on it to be able to adapt if they actually fix it. Admit it. 

 

It's not a bug, it's intended.

I would like to see an actual post from a Developer that says that it's working exactly as intended.

There's been multiple. Go equip a javelin and a claymore and use Flamer on a Vorcha Sentinel/Soldier, then hit the button again quicky. Tell me how long your cooldown is (it'll be the lowest possible cooldown, likely 3 seconds). This is a feature. Why would you be forced to take the full recharge speed of a 5-10 second long power if you only use it for a second or two?

Just saying, the fact that you're also calling somebody out and saying they're "dependent" on it and asking for them to admit it doesn't paint you in a good light. Do you know that person? Have you played with them? Or are you just attacking them because they disagree with you? I hate that.

Well, this is a perfect comparison - Flamer and Tac Cloak.

The DPS capability of Flamer is directly dependent on the time Flamer is turned on.  You turn Flamer on for 4 seconds - you do more total damage than if you turn flamer on for 2 seconds.  Thus, cooldown based on time active makes sense.

However, the damage boost from Tac Cloak applies regardless of how long cloak is active.  You have it active for 1 second - you get the same damage buff as you get from having it active for 6 seconds.  A variable cooldown is appropriate for cloak invisibility, but not for the damage boost, which is independent of time active.

[Nl55]

Any claims against TC is senseless now.

[atum]

CmnDwnWrkn why dont you propose something? All you've said in this is that you dont like TC having a proportional cool-down. So what? It's already been proven lots of classes can effectively ignore cool-down. So what's the issue with infiltrators specifically?

What do you think it should have? Are you proposing a buff so that TC base cool-down is 3 seconds if weight is the only factor?

Incidentally you were one of the biggest proponents of the TC nerf, and now you complain that TC's mechanics dont fit your liking. Are you really surprised that no one can take you seriously?

Also, is it true you really dont play any infiltrators? Honest question.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Ashen Earth wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

It's a perfectly-valid claim.  Tac Cloak by definition is less affected by weapon weight than most other powers in the game.  Are you really arguing against this?

Nice straw man. My arguement was that damage infiltrators are more affected by weapon weight than duration infiltrators, due to the mechanics of Tactical Cloak in response to your post that damage Infiltrators were less affected by weapon weight than Duration Infiltrators. I never said anything about other powers, my argument was about TC, and TC alone. Is that what you do whenever you make a post that's wrong? Instead of admitting that you're wrong, you try to divert attention from it, misconstrue other people's arguments and create your own argument to refute?

For the record, you've still ignored my points.

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
Please stop trolling and think about what you're writing for a second.

The irony, it burns.

Yes, I have already acknowledged that damage infiltrators are significantly impacted by weapon weight, on paper.  Several times in fact.  But when you consider how peopl actually play a damage infiltrator vs. a duration inf, the damage infiltrator is actually less impacted by weapon weight.  This is because duration infs are more likely to use the full duration (or a larger share of the full duration) than damage infs, which generally use only a small fraction of the total time available to them.

atum wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn why dont you propose something?
All you've said in this is that you dont like TC having a proportional
cool-down. So what? It's already been proven lots of classes can
effectively ignore cool-down. So what's the issue with infiltrators
specifically?

What do you think it should have? Are you proposing a buff so that TC base cool-down is 3 seconds if weight is the only factor?

Incidentally
you were one of the biggest proponents of the TC nerf, and now you
complain that TC's mechanics dont fit your liking. Are you really
surprised that no one can take you seriously?

Also, is it true you really dont play any infiltrators? Honest question.

Lots of classes can ignore cool-down? Really?  Adept - no.  Soldier - 1 or 2.  Engineer - no.  Sentinel - no.  Vanguard -no.

And I didn't want a nerf of Tac Cloak damage then, nor do I want a nerf now.  Did I think Infiltrators had some unfair advantages over other classes?  Yes, and I still do to some degree, but not as much as before.  But I've always maintained that I'd rather other classes be brought up to the level of Infiltrator than the Infiltrator be nerfed.  I think every class should be able to push a button for an instant 80% damage buff.

Modifié par CmnDwnWrkn, 08 août 2012 - 07:27 .

[Zero 2362]

I run a melee based duration infiltrator and let me tell you I dont mind the system as is. Unlike other powers the TC dosent do any damage directly. In fact the TC is the only thing that makes infiltrators worth running over soldiers. As TC with a damage build relies on a heavy weapon to work so I think the unique rules for this power are fine even though it does hurt my infiltrator build as I dont rely on a heavy weapon.

[NuclearTech76]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...


Well, this is a perfect comparison - Flamer and Tac Cloak.

The DPS capability of Flamer is directly dependent on the time Flamer is turned on.  You turn Flamer on for 4 seconds - you do more total damage than if you turn flamer on for 2 seconds.  Thus, cooldown based on time active makes sense.

However, the damage boost from Tac Cloak applies regardless of how long cloak is active.  You have it active for 1 second - you get the same damage buff as you get from having it active for 6 seconds.  A variable cooldown is appropriate for cloak invisibility, but not for the damage boost, which is independent of time active.

I don't even.....

[Ashen One]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

It's a perfectly-valid claim.  Tac Cloak by definition is less affected by weapon weight than most other powers in the game.  Are you really arguing against this?

Nice straw man. My arguement was that damage infiltrators are more affected by weapon weight than duration infiltrators, due to the mechanics of Tactical Cloak in response to your post that damage Infiltrators were less affected by weapon weight than Duration Infiltrators. I never said anything about other powers, my argument was about TC, and TC alone. Is that what you do whenever you make a post that's wrong? Instead of admitting that you're wrong, you try to divert attention from it, misconstrue other people's arguments and create your own argument to refute?

For the record, you've still ignored my points.

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
Please stop trolling and think about what you're writing for a second.

The irony, it burns.

Yes, I have already acknowledged that damage infiltrators are significantly impacted by weapon weight, on paper.  Several times in fact. 

You should update the OP with this new information, so that lurkers who happen to frequent this forum don't come by and take your bad information as fact.

[Djarknaein]

May be tactical cloak could also drain your shield. And then regenerate only when the shield is fully charged.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Ashen Earth wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

NuclearTech76 wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Ashen Earth wrote...

And I see your reading comprehension skills (or lack thereof) have not improved.

If you're using a damage spec-cloak in a way in which your cooldown is substantially impacted by weapon weight frequently, then you need to learn to play.

Why don't you refute some of the points in his post instead of making assumptions about him as a player and how he plays?

Because it's easier for him to try to divert attention away from his ignorant, ill-informed claims about damage Infiltrators being less affected by heavy loadouts than duration Infiltrators with trollish remarks as opposed to offering valid counter arguments.

Or maybe he simply can't refute any of it, because he doesn't even play the class. That was his stance in many of his other Infiltrator "balance" threads in the past.

It's a perfectly-valid claim.  Tac Cloak by definition is less affected by weapon weight than most other powers in the game.  Are you really arguing against this?

Nice straw man. My arguement was that damage infiltrators are more affected by weapon weight than duration infiltrators, due to the mechanics of Tactical Cloak in response to your post that damage Infiltrators were less affected by weapon weight than Duration Infiltrators. I never said anything about other powers, my argument was about TC, and TC alone. Is that what you do whenever you make a post that's wrong? Instead of admitting that you're wrong, you try to divert attention from it, misconstrue other people's arguments and create your own argument to refute?

For the record, you've still ignored my points.

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...
Please stop trolling and think about what you're writing for a second.

The irony, it burns.

Yes, I have already acknowledged that damage infiltrators are significantly impacted by weapon weight, on paper.  Several times in fact. 

You should update the OP with this new information, so that lurkers who happen to frequent this forum don't come by and take your bad information as fact.

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

It enables damage-speced Infiltrators to equip the heaviest weapons in
the game without having to worry about cooldown periods, assuming the
Infiltrator cloaks immediately before firing, they'll get the 3 second
cooldown each time. 

Learn to read...