436 réponses à ce sujet

[Poison_Berrie]

Transairion wrote... 

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. 

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

Before the Mattock like the Indra really wasn't that special, amongst AR it was decent, but that didn't count for much. Now both are weapons you can carry with you on Gold.
The Wraith was a small step up from the Eviscerator completely unworthy of it's UR status. Some might argue it's still not, but it's no longer an unanimous opinion. 
The Arc Pistol as well and the Phaeston in my opinion.
And arguably the Viper, which didn't have a real seem to fit in anywhere, but thanks to the buff it's become a good, lightweight caster or back up sniper

IndigoVitare wrote...

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

There's been some people testing and it appears the gun is bugged.

Mojenator12345 wrote...

-  Why do they keep making Geth harder?  They already ****ing annoying.

They don't keep making the Geth harder. 
They are bugged and their small pool of units consits for half of staggering enemies. But beside the Wave composition on Gold, Geth didn't recieve a buff since March 13. 

-  What's the point of the Kishock anymore?

Relatively light, fast reload, ingores shield gate and DR, no unscoped penalty, can be charged to outdamage a Widow otherwise Mantis level damage. 

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

All uncommon assault rifle are very decent guns, with I'd say the Mattock being on par with the Harrier aside from DPS. Revenant isn't bad either. Falcon is good as well. 

-  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).

Don't know about Platinum, but I've used a lot of different weapons on Gold with succes and I would consider myself a mediocre player.

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.

That discussion isn't held here. This is thread is here to show the fallacy in the "EVERYTHING IS GETTING NERFED!!1!" hysteria.

Also since it's being repeated quite often. 
People do know why enemies get buffs right? I mean the logic behind why enemies get a buff, the reasoning and their inteded effect.

Modifié par Poison_Berrie, 09 août 2012 - 04:34 .

[GodlessPaladin]

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.

This is complete hyperbole.

Enemy health has not been doubled (or even remotely close to doubled), at any point, for any enemy, ever.  Honestly, would it kill you to say something that has some actual bearing on reality?   IIRC, the single largest enemy hp buff was 34%, and the average is 7%.  Reapers haven't had any hp buffs at all.

By contrast, gear upgrades have in fact allowed shields to recharge more than just 10% faster.    In fact you can currently get a -100% shield recharge delay such that your shields recharge constantly.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 05:08 .

[ScuuubaSteeeve]

I can see what you mean when you post all of that up like that, BUT that amount of buffs was needed in mp, see the single player statistics are terribly unbalanced in the mp mode. In single player there was always a "better" gun to get, and in the endgame to be effective there was very little choice of what you could use and still have an optimal setup. Not to mention shepard had MANY more abilities and combinations, rounding out the small amount of weapon choices. They had to make more viable options for players and i dont think i have to say that mp is much much much crazier and difficult than sp ever was. Also untill you post enemy buffs this data means nothing, many of those buffs to weapons have been erased by enemy buffs, and makes the nerfs THAT much worse, compare and you will see this

[ryoldschool]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

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.

This is why I assumed:

It was a very long post and no mention, like on the other weapons where you detail the changes, do you say anything about the degree of the change.

Right after the Falcon numbers - 
In other words, the Falcon got one of the biggest nerfs in the game. 
Krysae - 
In other words, this is one of the biggest nerfs in the game. 
N7 TYPHOON ASSAULT RIFLE:
- Distance Penetration decreased from 100cm to 25cm (e.g. same as Black Widow anti-materiel rifle)
- Damage multiplier when fully ramped up decreased from [2.0x] to [1.5x] (I am not 100% sure where this puts it at in terms of damage because I'm not 100% sure of precisely how each of the N7 Typhoon's unique mechanics work). 

It is not until the very end of your post do you mention that you feel it was a big nerf:

7 guns have been nerfed.
- Of these 7 nerfs, 4 are nothing but minor weight changes (Harrier weight increased 25, Reegar weight increased 25, Vindicator weight increased 20, Carnifex weight increased 15).  The other 3 (Falcon, Krysae, Typhoon) are significant, and apparently represent "constant overbearing nerfing making all of the guns useless nerf guns."  I suppose the other 47 weapons don't count. 

[ryoldschool]

IndigoVitare wrote...

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.

I am not sure what level you are playing on.  In specter's video comparing pre and post nerf ( platinum ) even with tricked out consumables it took over a full clip of the Typhoon on the destroyer to take out an Atlas, easily the best target for the typhoon ( big, hard to miss, moves slow - not like a banshee, or phantom ).

As for using it on any class that requires a cooldown, like Human Soldier's Arush

Arush Cooldown with only one weapon equiped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrier 7 = 2.46 seconds
Revenant X = 2.35 seconds
Typhoon 6   = 3.80 seconds

Edit: Claymore X = 3.33 seconds, just to compare.

Modifié par ryoldschool, 09 août 2012 - 06:13 .

[neteng101]

The reality is simply, the combinations of changes as a whole has resulted in a harder game today at any particular difficulty level compared to some time in the history of ME3.

Eg. The pre-nerf GI with weapons available back then ie. stuff like the Claymore, could much more easily manage Gold than the post-nerf GI with the Piranha. This is taking into account other aspects that changed including patches and stealth nerfs.

Anyone really thinks this post-nerf ME3 is easier than the pre-nerf ME3? I consider the time the nerf wars began to be when Rebellion was released... along with the Krysae, the one weapon that has led to an unprecedented series of uber nerfs in ME3.

I just want Gold to be like what it WAS, prior to Rebellion/patch 1.03 changes. The game was really a lot of fun back then. I'd gladly give up my Harrier, Piranha, Reegar, etc, to have that old game back. But even if I uninstall all the newer DLC content, I'm stuck with the balance changes to the older stuff.

And no I didn't always play the GI even... but the difficulty level and fun factor (Prime headshots, I do miss you) was supremely better balanced back then. Silver is a bit too easy and Gold is a bit too much work right now (no interest in Platinum really, never thought we needed more difficulty)... that balance and fun has been lost, and both are far more boring overall.

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...

The reality is simply, the combinations of changes as a whole has resulted in a harder game today at any particular difficulty level compared to some time in the history of ME3.

  Compared to "some time" in the history of ME3?  Maybe so.  But not from its inception.  For example, the pre-nerf GI wielding the post-buff Claymore and Proximity Mine that you use an example was not available at the game's inception, and is itself an example of one of the single biggest instances of power creep in the game's history (outclassing many of the best character builds in the game entirely).

I'll help you out though.  Female Quarian Infiltrators vs. Geth has gotten harder.  But then, that's a good thing.  You could win those matches with your eyes closed while the Geth all committed suicide, and there was nothing fun or balanced about that. 

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 06:23 .

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Compared to "some time" in the history of ME3?  Maybe so.  But not from its inception.  For example, the pre-nerf GI wielding the post-buff Claymore and Proximity Mine that you use an example was not available at the game's inception, and is itself an example of one of the single biggest instances of power creep in the game's history (outclassing many of the best character builds in the game entirely).

But who cares about power creep?  The point I'm making is that the game's gotten harder, is less fun to play, and thus, if Bioware's goal is indeed to keep people interested, they're turning people away instead.

Bioware seems only concerned about the 1% in their playerbase (ok, maybe not 1%, but the top 10% thereabouts).

If Bioware was doing a great job with buffs and nerfs and balancing the game well, there wouldn't be 1/10th the number of complains about their actions here.  The outcry is proof plenty that Bioware balance changes are a bust.

Modifié par neteng101, 09 août 2012 - 06:25 .

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Compared to "some time" in the history of ME3?  Maybe so.  But not from its inception.  For example, the pre-nerf GI wielding the post-buff Claymore and Proximity Mine that you use an example was not available at the game's inception, and is itself an example of one of the single biggest instances of power creep in the game's history (outclassing many of the best character builds in the game entirely).

But who cares about power creep?

Gamers in general.  This is basic game design stuff, not some wild new idea.

neteng101 wrote...
Bioware seems only concerned about the 1% in their playerbase (ok, maybe not 1%, but the top 10% thereabouts).

You sure like to throw that "1%" thing around a lot without actually having any source whatsoever for said statistic.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 06:25 .

[Grunt_Platform]

There was a more thorough refutation by a very smart guy just upthread, but I have to say my piece on some of this:

Mojenator12345 wrote...
-  Why do they keep making Geth harder?  They already ****ing annoying.

This is getting really really old. I have to assume the vast majority of people complaining about geth buffs did not, in fact, play multiplayer during the first week of the game, and just heard that geth received a buff and react from there. The last time geth were made harder was March 13th. The second balance change ever, at the end of the game's first week of availability. In other words: odds are good geth have not gotten any harder since you started playing, and certainly before most players started playing Gold. And the only real AI Hacking nerf to speak of happened at the same time, so no, they don't add up to "constantly making geth harder."

And removing the geth prime's headshots was a bug fix, not a nerf or an enemy buff.  If you want to count it though.. congatulations, that's another fairly old buff to the faction. And it's not even that big a deal, unless you're playing really poorly (by which I mean, for any skill level except bronze), or farming firebase white. There are no constant buffs to geth. They have not changed since around the time of the second DLC pack.

The real source of frustration with geth is just some buggy behavior. While I hope fixing that is a priority, the fact is, there are still bigger issues that might be taking priority over making geth hunters a little less infuriating.

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

Hunter mode post-nerf is still one of the best powers in the game. What does that tell you about it pre-nerf? The fact is, the Geth Infiltrator is the most offensively powerful class in the game, and taking a little power from it helps encourage class diversity, which extends the life of the game.

Did BEs really need a nerf? Eh. I dunno. Did they take a hard one?.. not really, they're still really useful, and incredibly powerful, especially against the two most important defenses in the game (Barriers and Armor). Prior to the radius reduction, Biotic Explosions using Warp not only had this immense power, they also had a better radius than any other combo. And Warp + Throw is very very easy to set up and set off, especially on the targets it does the best against.

-  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.

I love that you put these two comments right next to each other, as the former disproves the latter: The Hurricane and Piranha were both overbuffed. In the Hurricane's case it won't break the game until some lucky soul gets it to or near rank X, so it's safe for now.The trick is that they want the Hurricane to be worth using at Rank I. The Piranha buff was clearly decided during development, before they fully considered all the ways to mitigate its poor accuracy (or they underestimated its DPS). As a result, we have had two guns that are balanced at low levels, but become broken at higher levels, since there are so many tools to offset their weaknesses.

Anyway, Bioware is clearly operating with some precedural restrictions, and applying some common sense to their buffs—It's a bit easier to dial a gun back without breaking the game, then it is to buff it without breaking the game.

Modifié par EvanKester, 09 août 2012 - 10:12 .

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gamers in general.  This is basic game design stuff, not some wild new idea.

Its basic game design stuff, but the balance is there to achieve fun, not to detract from it.

And gamers in general?  Am I not a gamer too?  What you're talking about are hardcore gamers ie. elitists.

Balance is good when it enriches the gaming experience.  When it detracts from it except for a certain select group, its a bad thing.  Balance is only a tool...  its the balance aimed for/achieved that determines whether its really done correctly or not.

Bioware balance is basically hardcore.

I do welcome, and actually expect, power creep.  It incentivises people to keep playing to unlock yet better equipment!

Modifié par neteng101, 09 août 2012 - 06:31 .

[jd8291]

I think one of the factors that affect how people feel about buffs/nerfs is that buffs affect things that people don't use while nerfs affect things that people use. Therefore the nerfs have an immediate impact and are felt harder than the buffs.

[GodlessPaladin]

neteng101 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gamers in general.  This is basic game design stuff, not some wild new idea.

Its basic game design stuff, but the balance is there to achieve fun, not to detract from it.

And gamers in general?  Am I not a gamer too?  What you're talking about are hardcore gamers ie. elitists.

Now all hardcore gamers are elitists?  Every post from you makes more insulting and farfetched hasty generalizations and baseless assumptions.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 06:32 .

[Vulture N7]

Killahead wrote...

Good job. This forum would have been a lot more civilized, not to mention smarter place, if everyone were to read this.

AGREED

Mandatory reading, should be a sticky

[Voorhees88]

All I got to say on the subject is this

Outta all the buff I'd estimate that around 80% of the buffed are still next to useless

Outta the nerfs most of them are bad now
I'm not saying things didn't need a nerf, just that they obliterated the weapons into spitballs

[neteng101]

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Now all hardcore gamers are elitists?

Never met one that didn't show it in some form or other really.  They all are.  Speaking even of friends and people I know personally.

Its just the fact that people can't objectively look at themselves and admit it.  It also says a lot how some reacts to being called an elitist...  because it does have some positive connotations too.  I'll leave you to figure out how you usually respond to this.

P/S - Don't forget, you haven't addressed if Bioware's balance is indeed hardcore or not.  They already stated they balance based on Gold...  just to give you an idea, and back then, Gold was the hardest difficulty option.

Modifié par neteng101, 09 août 2012 - 06:36 .

[Rokayt]

ryoldschool wrote...

IndigoVitare wrote...

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.

I am not sure what level you are playing on.  In specter's video comparing pre and post nerf ( platinum ) even with tricked out consumables it took over a full clip of the Typhoon on the destroyer to take out an Atlas, easily the best target for the typhoon ( big, hard to miss, moves slow - not like a banshee, or phantom ).

As for using it on any class that requires a cooldown, like Human Soldier's Arush

Arush Cooldown with only one weapon equiped
----------------------------------------------------------------
Harrier 7 = 2.46 seconds
Revenant X = 2.35 seconds
Typhoon 6   = 3.80 seconds

Edit: Claymore X = 3.33 seconds, just to compare.

I have to say, that video is one of the least alarming videos I have ever seen.

That shows an exact 25% nerf to the Typhoon.

Sure, you had to reload... But having guns that must reload on an atlas is kinda expected.

Calling it a 50% nerf ot the Typhoon is silly, because atlas are not the only things you can expect to be shooting with your Typhoon.

[Grunt_Platform]

neteng101 wrote...

GodlessPaladin wrote...

Gamers in general.  This is basic game design stuff, not some wild new idea.

Its basic game design stuff, but the balance is there to achieve fun, not to detract from it.

And gamers in general?  Am I not a gamer too?  What you're talking about are hardcore gamers ie. elitists.

Power creep decreases fun in the long term, by invalidating older or less overpowered options. It also creates a barrier to entry. Consider: if you NEEDED to have a Krysae, Falcon and/or Piranha to be considered ready for Gold (and possibly Silver eventually because many people think it's harder than it is), those are all rare guns, and thus new players, or players who haven't  played in a while need to grind that much harder to be considered "viable". It would also tempt Bioware to buff enemies until they were could challenge players using those weapons, which makes the game that much harder for everyone else.  I doubt Bioware would go that route (slope's not so slippery [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/whistling.png[/smilie]) but the playerbase already tends to have trouble telling the difference between what's "optimal" and what's viable.

Thanks to buffs these days, several uncommon weapons are good enough to contribute on Gold. Thanks to nerfs, the bar for good quality on weapons is kept from getting too high. The fact that many people think the Krysae or the Piranha were the "only good weapons" is indicative of how quickly the problem sets in.

And hardcore gamer does not necessarily equate to elitist. They can, and perhaps often do, go hand in hand. But they are separate qualities. The sheer fact that you are involved with discussions about balance pushes you closer to the "hardcore" side of things anyway.

Modifié par EvanKester, 09 août 2012 - 06:42 .

[rmccowen]

ryoldschool wrote...

I am not sure what level you are playing on.  In specter's video comparing pre and post nerf ( platinum ) even with tricked out consumables it took over a full clip of the Typhoon on the destroyer to take out an Atlas, easily the best target for the typhoon ( big, hard to miss, moves slow - not like a banshee, or phantom ).

In my own testing, it's worked fine--better than fine, actually, and results (on Gold) don't look anything like the video. The biggest problem with the Typhoon is that currently YMMV with it, and no one is really sure why.

Theoretically, however, the nerf left a Typhoon I doing 1000 DPS or so against shields/barriers/armor, which is substantial.

[neteng101]

EvanKester wrote...

Power creep decreases fun in the long term, by invalidating older or less overpowered options. It also creates a barrier to entry: Consider, if you NEEDED to have a Krysae, Falcon and/or Piranha to be considered ready for Gold

Yes, go ahead, please tell that to Bioware.  I remember when I could deal with a Gold Prime using just a Phalanx (headshots rock).  These days, people would want to kick you for doing that.

The simple fact is that any creep on the player side has been more than offset by horde side changes/power creep.

If anything, changes Bioware is making to make the game more difficulty is decreasing the fun in the long term!

[GodlessPaladin]

Voorhees88 wrote...

All I got to say on the subject is this

Outta all the buff I'd estimate that around 80% of the buffed are still next to useless

Outta the nerfs most of them are bad now

Congratulations on pulling random absurd numbers out of thin air.

There are 8 nerfed guns.  How many of them are "bad now?"  The Reegar?  The Harrier?  The Carnifex?  The Piranha?  The Vindicator (which some argue is better than the Carnifex, and it's an Uncommon)?  That's already more than half, which invalidates the "most" claim.

And then let's look at the gold and black card weapons that have been buffed.  Of them we have the Claymore, Indra, Hurricane, Black Widow,
Scorpion, Talon, Revenant, Saber, Paladin, Hornet (roughly competitive with the Carnifex), Arc Pistol (which is now about as good as the Carnifex, but nobody seems to have noticed because power creep left the Carnifex behind), Prothean Particle Beam (Don't have it, and don't have the damage formula for it, but I hear players like Ashen Earth and RedJohn praising its virtues), and Javelin (which was actually used in record-breaking speedruns post-buff before power creep left it behind, and it's actually the primary beneficiary of the shield gate change that's happened since then)

The Eagle, Crusader, Geth Plasma SMG, and Geth Pulse Rifle still suck.  Do they comprise "80%"? Heck I'll even let you throw the Hornet, Javelin, Arc Pistol, and PPB on there. Still not anywhere near 80%.

Then there are common and uncommon weapons which have become meaningful in their rarity tiers, which you probably discounted just because they don't compete with higher rarity tiers.  The Shuriken is laser accurate, has a fat clip, and pierces the shield gate and does about as much damage as the Avenger while being lighter.  The Mattock, Phaeston, Viper, and Tempest are solid for silver cards.  And so forth.

Modifié par GodlessPaladin, 09 août 2012 - 06:53 .

[Voorhees88]

and of those most of them for the rarity type suck BW is outdone by any UR assault rifle hmm I wonder why bc of the TC getting nerf fed the wrong way jav still isn't as good as it had been, hornet, carnifex are ok for gold. the rev is Garbo arc pistol is bad shield gate for me only works on the jav maybe the widow havnt tried it
but the BW doesn't ignore shield gate at all

[xtorma]

As far as effectiveness , wouldnt the number of nerfed guns be 21 when fighting against cerberus or the geth? Just an observation , as i still agree that the game is getting slightly easier.

[Grunt_Platform]

neteng101 wrote...

EvanKester wrote...

Power creep decreases fun in the long term, by invalidating older or less overpowered options. It also creates a barrier to entry: Consider, if you NEEDED to have a Krysae, Falcon and/or Piranha to be considered ready for Gold

Yes, go ahead, please tell that to Bioware.  I remember when I could deal with a Gold Prime using just a Phalanx (headshots rock).  These days, people would want to kick you for doing that.

The simple fact is that any creep on the player side has been more than offset by horde side changes/power creep.

If anything, changes Bioware is making to make the game more difficulty is decreasing the fun in the long term!

They really really haven't. And just the other day I played a couple Gold matches using the Phalanx as my only weapon. I was with a player who was using the Locust. We mopped the floor with everything in the match (OK, the first match I herped and derped since trying to get pistol kills with a Phoenix is silly and I deserved to suffer for it).

I'm done repeating myself, but try looking back in the thread a bit.

Oh, btw: People have brought up the headshots thing with the devs. It is being looked into. But if you need to deal triple damage to beat a Geth Prime, your team has bigger problems.

EDIT: please read GodlessPaladin's above post to understand one of the fundamental problems with power creep: The Carnifex never stopped being a good gun. Ever. There was no enemy buff that rendered it weaker than before. But because newer weapons, and some other weapons that were buffed, have risen so much in power relative to it, many people have stopped even checking if the Carnifex is viable, and don't even notice when the Arc Pistol is now as good as the Carnifex.

Modifié par EvanKester, 09 août 2012 - 06:54 .

[ryoldschool]

rmccowen wrote...

ryoldschool wrote...

I am not sure what level you are playing on.  In specter's video comparing pre and post nerf ( platinum ) even with tricked out consumables it took over a full clip of the Typhoon on the destroyer to take out an Atlas, easily the best target for the typhoon ( big, hard to miss, moves slow - not like a banshee, or phantom ).

In my own testing, it's worked fine--better than fine, actually, and results (on Gold) don't look anything like the video. The biggest problem with the Typhoon is that currently YMMV with it, and no one is really sure why.

Theoretically, however, the nerf left a Typhoon I doing 1000 DPS or so against shields/barriers/armor, which is substantial.

Well I tested it on gold on a demolisher even yesterday after the balance changes and I don't see is as much better than the revenant ( which is only a rare and was not thought to be that great anyway ).  And a lot of other guys in the Thoughts on the Typhoon thread  here don't think is very good anymore either.

Edit: I guess it really does not matter what somebody thinks.  I know for my testing with the demolisher on Gold I would expect the current Typhoon to be 50% better than the Revenant because of the extra damage to shields/barriers/armor, and it isnt, imo.  If you are happy with the current version of the weapon, fine.  At this point I would trade my levels of the Typhoon for levels in the Harrier without looking back ( assuming I would believe that they would not un-nerf the Typhoon, but they might ).

Modifié par ryoldschool, 09 août 2012 - 07:00 .