436 réponses à ce sujet

[Arctican]

I'd say the Indra was buffed significantly. It used to do nothing against armor without mods, but can now actually kill armor units. They also pretty much buffed multiple caster classes by introducing a gun to counteract their weakness against shields: the Acolyte. Plus, you're forgetting about additional gears and equipment we can now use to help against the supposedly stronger enemies.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Great info GP. Thanks for this.

[ME3 Fury]

Gameplay is fluid, math is not. While this thread may be indeed informative, numbers mean jack at the end of the day.

[CmnDwnWrkn]

Something else to consider though is how reasonable or off the mark the original weapons parameters were though. Some of the weapons listed have received a rather large % increase, but they were very weak to begin with, and they're still weak after the buff(s). This is why you can't simply compare % increase/decrease between different weapons without also assessing how relatively underpowered/overpowered they were before the change.

[GodlessPaladin]

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

Something else to consider though is
how reasonable or off the mark the original weapons parameters were
though. Some of the weapons listed have received a rather large %
increase, but they were very weak to begin with, and they're still weak
after the buff(s). This is why you can't simply compare %
increase/decrease between different weapons without also assessing how
relatively underpowered/overpowered they were before the change.

Clearly. 
I would not argue that the Eagle is now a good weapon, for example.  But like I said before, this thread's not talking about whether the end results are balanced.  I have other analysis threads for that.  It's comparing the proportional magnitude of buffs vs nerfs in order to falsify a myth (e.g. that heavyhanded nerfs are a common occurrence and of greater magnitude than buffs).

ryoldschool wrote...
In those three I assume you are including the Typhoon, and if not then you need to make that four.

  Why are you assuming?  Just read the first post.  I am clearly including the Typhoon.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 02:07 .

[IndigoVitare]

ryoldschool wrote...
In those three I assume you are including the Typhoon, and if not then you need to make that four.  I do not believe that those 150% factors vs armor/shields/barriers works ( perhaps it did pre-nerf ) and after the nerf is really is not worth taking anymore.   This is a big letdown since its an ultra-rare and it was very good, now just wasted upgrades.  Had the gun just been a rare it would not hurt nearly as much.   We even had a thirty page thread about it, started by bioware, but they have done nothing other that say after the nerf it is still "very powerful".

The best full auto, high capacity weapon in the game?

Even at I it still takes out an Atlas like it's made of paper. And no, I wasn't using the Destroyer, HS or an Infiltrator to do that.

Honestly, anyone who thinks the Typhoon is rubbish now must be insane. It's no longer the kill-everything weapon it once was, but then that was what was wrong with it in the first place. You've got a huge amount of sustained dps fire, which is exactly what it should be, bonuses against all defence types and innate piercing. If it's unpopular compared with, say, the Harrier, then there are several obvious reasons why:

1. It's not been out for as long, so there are fewer players able to use it.
2. It suffers from the same problem as the Revenent, Phaeston etc. Namely the high damage nature of the game putting users at risk when they have to spent a lot of time out of cover. HOWEVER, all those weapons are perfectly viable on certain classes. SO IS THE TYPHOON. There is NOTHING wrong with a weapon that only reaches maximum effectiveness on certain classes; that's how most of them work.

[Mojenator12345]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

The Mad Hanar wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

I think that both overnerfing and overbuffing are bad.

Do you think that fact might have something to do with people getting over reactive when it comes to nerfs?

...Why would it have anything to do with that?

Eh, I started out on the nerfer side (was out here advocating for the infiltrator nerf), but I've soured on it at this point.   Watching their progress week after week, I don't feel BW has demonstrated much of a feel for balance, and at this point I'd rather they just stop messing around with everything. 

-  Remember how the infiltrator nerf was supposed to support a general buff of sniper rifles to make them more usable for non-infiltrators?  Yeah, that happened.

-  10 buffs later and the Eagle still sucks.  So does the Crusader.  What a reward for taking part in Ops...
 
-  Why do they keep making Geth harder?  They already ****ing annoying.

-  Did the Krysae really need to be destroyed that thoroughly?  Or the Falcon?  Or the Typhoon?

-  What's the point of the Kishock anymore?

-  Why did the GE's hunter mode need to be nerfed?  Did BEs really need to be nerfed?

-  Five months later, all of the non-UR assault rifles still suck.  

-  Many weapons still really do not serve a purpose on gold/platinum (yes, I'm sure someone on BSN can solo platinum with all of them using a level 1 drell vanguard -- that doesn't really help me much).

-  Why was the Hurrican buffed (three times!)?  Why was the Piranha buffed (before it was nerfed)?

I think BW's tendency to under-buff, over-nerf, and generally make inexplicable changes is absolutely relevant to this discussion.  Objectively, I'm pro-balance.  I just don't have faith in BW to move in the direction of balance through all of their constant tinkering.

[BeardyMcGoo]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Anyone pretending that there is an incessant stream of heavyhanded nerfing and proportionally meaningless buffing turning all the guns in the game into garbage is doing just that:  Pretending.

Exactly.  The extreme whining about the nerfing going on "all the time" is out of hand.

Great thread, GP.

[Transairion]

Something else to consider though is how reasonable or off the mark the original weapons parameters were though. Some of the weapons listed have received a rather large % increase, but they were very weak to begin with, and they're still weak after the buff(s). This is why you can't simply compare % increase/decrease between different weapons without also assessing how
relatively underpowered/overpowered they were before the change.

^ Basically this in a nutshell:

How many weapons that were buffed went from totally worthless to good/great/amazing? None of those listed strike me as doing so, in fact of those only the Indra was ever considered bad to begin with. In fact I've always seen the Hurricane, Talon, Claymore, Mattock and Scorpion as pretty dang good weapons. As you said, the Eagle gained a what... +88% buff but it still sucks hard.

What weapon buffs changed people from never picking up a weapon to taking it all the time? None that I can see, though I've only seen a single Krysae and Typhoon since their nerfs. Lots of little buffs haven't made people pick up the bad-but-buffed weapons that I've seen, yet they've dropped nerfed weapons never to be seen agian.

Nobody seems to be using the Typhoon anymore, but all the Eagle buffs haven't made anyone pick it up as far as I've experianced. Tiny buffs to junk still leaves junk, big nerfs to awesome makes them average and they're dropped.

Still, appreciate all the information, but it's pretty obvious nobody really picks up a buffed weapon if they weren't already using it.

[Bone3ater]

Great work.

So the Krysae really got nerfed into the ground.

[vironblood]

It all comes down to poor design. Increasing the base damage of an ability by 100% (Concussive Shot) or 66.6% (Lift Grenades) translates into a poor initial design of said ability. The same goes for the Eagle - N7Promotional and Indra - UR receiving over 50% increase to their burst DPS, pathetic weapon design. The initial Krysae and Pirahna fall on the other extreme of the spectrum but follow the same concept.

Of course a faulty implementation gets filtered along the way of testing; however since Bioware lacks the manpower to properly achieve this the solution would be quite simple: beta testers.

[FeralJester616]

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

[GodlessPaladin]

FeralJester616 wrote...

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

You could have answered this question by simply reading through the thread.

They are mentioned in the OP.  And in subsequent analysis in replies to this thread.  The OP includes enemy statistical changes in the exact same way it includes the gear slot, level IV ammo, character kit changes, et cetera.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 02:37 .

[Master Xanthan]

death_for_sale wrote...

BuckshotSamurai wrote...

Oh come on now. You know damned good and well that the buffs are minuscule but when they decide to nerf something it gets neutered. Furthermore, BW continually refuses to buff weapons that clearly need drastic changes to make them worth consideration on anything above Bronze. Sure, Red John can take a level 1 Human Adept with a level 1 Eagle into Gold and breeze through it in 18 minutes solo, but that doesn't make the HA or the Eagle any less crap for the average player.

BW needs to stop making adjustments based on the best players with optimal setups and give the average player something to work with.

The average player has TONS of things to work with. The problem is that the average player is not content to play on a difficulty they are comfortable with because that means they can't get large numbers of credits to get the "cool" stuff.

So, in effect, the average player wants crutches to work with so that they can farm difficulties they shouldn't be attempting with their skill level. When one of those crutches gets removed, they are faced with the reality that they shouldn't be playing difficulty X and they cry out that Bioware hates them.

Completely incorrect. I just don't like nerfs because it always seems to happen to new dlc weapons. When that happens it makes me question why they even made dlc in the first place. 

[FeralJester616]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

You could have answered this question by simply reading through the thread.

They are mentioned in the OP.  And in subsequent analysis in replies to this thread.  The OP includes enemy statistical changes in the exact same way it includes the gear slot, level IV ammo, character kit changes, et cetera.

I did read the thread.

I was asking about the OP. Which admitedly may have been edited by the time I posted.
Yes they were mentioned, but I fail (and this may be my fault) to see them in your calculations.
I wasn't faulting your work or even arguing with you. I just wanted to know why...

[ME3 Fury]

The simplest explanation as to why choose weapon A over weapon B is the instant gratification need of today's society. Just look at speed runs for instance. When given the ability to do the same job in 10 minutes or 20 minutes. It's a no brainer what people will choose. People only care about getting to the end of the journey, and very little on how to get there. Just as long as the end comes faster.

If a blatantly OP weapon is made available, you're damned right most people will use it. Does the job faster. Take it away, and there will be so much outcry over taking that away. Even making pointless or baseless arguments to defend it.

Unless you're really into numbers, which I'm betting most of us aren't, in the end, people just see their new favorite toy broken. That's all that matters. Cause now they gotta wait for the next one, or pick up the broken pieces and go home to mommy. Little Jimmy will go find something else to do.

[GodlessPaladin]

FeralJester616 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

You could have answered this question by simply reading through the thread.

They are mentioned in the OP.  And in subsequent analysis in replies to this thread.  The OP includes enemy statistical changes in the exact same way it includes the gear slot, level IV ammo, character kit changes, et cetera.

I did read the thread.

I was asking about the OP. Which admitedly may have been edited by the time I posted.
Yes they were mentioned, but I fail (and this may be my fault) to see them in your calculations.
I wasn't faulting your work or even arguing with you. I just wanted to know why...

It wasn't edited by the time you posted.  Last edit was 18 hours ago.

Also, I'm not sure what calculation you expect to see them in that you feel they're "missing" from.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 02:49 .

[IndigoVitare]

FeralJester616 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

You could have answered this question by simply reading through the thread.

They are mentioned in the OP.  And in subsequent analysis in replies to this thread.  The OP includes enemy statistical changes in the exact same way it includes the gear slot, level IV ammo, character kit changes, et cetera.

I did read the thread.

I was asking about the OP. Which admitedly may have been edited by the time I posted.
Yes they were mentioned, but I fail (and this may be my fault) to see them in your calculations.
I wasn't faulting your work or even arguing with you. I just wanted to know why...

Probably the same reason they didn't take lvl IV equipment, Gear, player character buffs and the like into account.

If enemy buffs represent a blanket nerf to every class and weapon in the game, then gear represents the exact opposite and in terms of percentage, the effect of Gear far outweighs the changes to enemies.

[FeralJester616]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

You could have answered this question by simply reading through the thread.

They are mentioned in the OP.  And in subsequent analysis in replies to this thread.  The OP includes enemy statistical changes in the exact same way it includes the gear slot, level IV ammo, character kit changes, et cetera.

I did read the thread.

I was asking about the OP. Which admitedly may have been edited by the time I posted.
Yes they were mentioned, but I fail (and this may be my fault) to see them in your calculations.
I wasn't faulting your work or even arguing with you. I just wanted to know why...

It wasn't edited by the time you posted.  Last edit was 18 hours ago.

Also, I'm not sure what calculation you expect to see them in that they're missing from.

If you can't see how the enemy buffs effect your calculations then why should I have to point it out?
I'm done with this thread, you dodge questions better than a political spin doctor...

[GodlessPaladin]

FeralJester616 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

FeralJester616 wrote...

Just one question....
Why were the buffs to the enemies not included in the OP's calculations?
I think you'd find that almost all weapons have effectivally been nerfed with this...

You could have answered this question by simply reading through the thread.

They are mentioned in the OP.  And in subsequent analysis in replies to this thread.  The OP includes enemy statistical changes in the exact same way it includes the gear slot, level IV ammo, character kit changes, et cetera.

I did read the thread.

I was asking about the OP. Which admitedly may have been edited by the time I posted.
Yes they were mentioned, but I fail (and this may be my fault) to see them in your calculations.
I wasn't faulting your work or even arguing with you. I just wanted to know why...

It wasn't edited by the time you posted.  Last edit was 18 hours ago.

Also, I'm not sure what calculation you expect to see them in that they're missing from.

If you can't see how the enemy buffs effect your calculations then why should I have to point it out?
I'm done with this thread, you dodge questions better than a political spin doctor...

So in other words, you can't point out a single error and you're the one doing the "spinning" with your melodramatic display.  You can't argue that, say, the calculation that the burst DPS of the Indra is wrong and it hasn't increased 54% because Geth Pyros have more shields.  Or that its maximum weight hasn't decreased because Atlas firing time has gone up.  What exactly are these calculations that you are pretending to see an error in, but refuse to actually point out what the error is?  Because every calculation in which enemy hp was relevant already includes enemy hp.  What actual, specific calculation are you suggesting be included?

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 03:20 .

[Salzella]

Ah, this is pretty great. Nice to see someone actually figure out what the real story is rather than crying because Atlases go down in 6 seconds rather than 5...

[SirDieAL0t]

nice work.

as im not that good with weapons so i dont wanna talk about nerfing-buffing. but in my opinion, they nerfed most used guns whereas they buffed least used guns. thats why people will complain about nerfing while they dont wanna try out buffed gun. or perhaps they dont like those guns, like indra for example.

[Mash-X-ToDieSlower]

Hey, OP...

YOU ARE AWESOME.

[palker]

Great post that need to be said

[Bivo]

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Atheosis wrote...

Father_Jerusalem wrote...

Really? And how much did the buffs to the enemies via health/removal of weakspots/this new shield recharge mechanic nerf every gun and power in the game by?

Not as much as the Gear bonuses buffed them.  

... Oh of course. Doubling enemy health = my shields recharge 10% faster. I forgot.

You may want to consider playing bronze.