104 réponses à ce sujet

[shepisavanguardgetoverit]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Assault rifles weren't the best at anything but they did a little bit of everything. That was their appeal. Most combat occurs at mid range and that's where AR's did well. Whenever I played other classes I missed using ARs. ARs were so popular they made an SMG emulate assault rifle features for player convenience (through paid DLC). What more proof is needed?

As for ME1 pistols they were good under marksman outside of it they weren't great. Casters didn't have adrenaline burst to reset cooldowns so they needed a backup weapon more than combat classes. The adept with AR training was very popular.

Immunity was also used by enemies too (bosses and Krogan)  so it's not like the player had a massive advantage over them.

Exactly, I still remember that fight with the 3 Krogan Battlemasters on Virmire on Insanity..........Painfull

[JG The Gamer]

tholloway93 wrote...

the only handy thing i find about the soldier is adrenaline rush is an instant reload which can be good on weapons such as claymore, widow etc. but i do agree its still a lil bit of a redundant class now considering i think they did a survey before and over 50% played soldier me1/2

And it works beautifully if you have an automatic weapon such as the Revenant or the Harrier as you can just keep shooting and get that damage bonus.

One difference I found between ME2 and ME3 was that in the former I used it like a crutch. Now I use it when I want an instant reload or massive damage. I can do without it, but I'll keep it as is. And a shield boost is nice.

Eventually I'm going to get around to playing a pure tank Sentinel. With the ability to stack Defense Matrix on top of Tech Armor, the Sentinel will never fall.

[SeeNoEvilHearNoEvil]

chrisnabal wrote...

SeeNoEvilHearNoEvil wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

I just don't see the purpose in the soldier class anymore. He doesn't excel in anything. He can't tank like he used to (as in ME1), he can't do the highest DPS anymore (like in ME2), he can't carry all the guns without penalty, he doesn't even have his signature class exclusive anymore the assault rifles. A lot of people (myself included) only play him out of class loyalty in ME3.

Where as the sentinel soldier actually plays more like a traditional soldier at least in the ME1 style. It just feels right to me.

The purpose in it's clearest state is called roleplaying. That is pretty much the fact over 90% of the whiners and stat calculators don't understand. If a roleplayer wants to be a pure soldier, he doe not want to choose a sentinel!

Take a hobbit warrior in D&D, or whatever fantasy system. There is absolutely NO reasoning to that if you compare the plain stats with any other available race... still people WANT to play as one. I personally am glad it is that way.

If you worried less about your character and weapon stats you could actually develop some fun playing the game.

Its a nice sentiment, but please understand that nothing you said there is going to change anyone's mind regarding this topic. I think we all understand that ME3 is an rpg and people can have fun playing whatever class they want but...this is the strategy and builds section, so expect many many threads like this. When they merged the ME2 counterpart of this section with another one many people petitioned to have it freed, so for a lot of people here, this is exactly what interests them.

I enjoy threads like this because for these games, the informational value here is better than anywhere else on net and most of the people that respond do know what they are talking about. When its civil, and for the most part it is, there is a lot to gain here if it interests you.

And yes, EB = explosive burst.

Oh, I totally know that, and I'm not trying in the least to convert anybody. Haven't played pen & paper rpg stuff in two decades, so I couldn't care less. I still though like to make up my own story for my characters (funnily haven't ever finished a soldier playthrough in ME1,2,3... it was just to boring for me).

I also have no problems with people building their perfect whatever... I DO however have a problem with people complaining, once they've found THEIR perfect class. And just as I respect their way of playing the game and telling everyone else about it, I take my right to show them another point of view.

[rt604]

JaegerBane wrote...

swk3000 wrote...
To me, the problem is that bad balancing led to the Soldier being extremely tough to kill. Between Immunity cutting all incoming damage to one-fifth of it's initial value, and Adrenaline Rush dropping enemy DPS by half or more, the Soldier has always been tough to kill. The thing is, that's not how it's supposed to be.

You stole one of mine, so I steal one of yours, as these are my thoughts exactly

I agree with you guys.  But I miss being able to tank with a soldier from ME1, I disagree with the part that a soldier being tough to kill is not supposed part of their repetoire.  Aside from concussion shot, a soldier has to expose himself to weapons fire to eliminate incoming enemies.  But with his high bonuses to DPS I guess you minimize his exposure, but what if you don't take the headshot buid; for my soldier I went for the extra ammo because I hate running out and having to scrounge for ammo under fire, that's normally when I get killed.  I don't get killed often, but that's normally what that happens.  Plus I  don't mind fortification, but I sometimes pick Defense Matrix for the shield recharge, in case I get hit hard suddenly.  So if I pick Defense Matrix 150 dmg vs 170 dmg is a big drop off.  I use a Revenant because I like to use an lmg, it's not the most efficient gun for the class.  But in ME 3 on insanity if your teammates are down you are hard press to survive a situation where you are vastly outnumbered, where as in ME 1 if my teammates are down, I can still make it solo.  I miss being able to tank with a soldier, though it was broken, the only threat to my ME1 soldier was Matriarch Benezia, and maybe Krogan Battlemasters if I didn't have a biotic on the squad on insanity.

[capn233]

shepisavanguardgetoverit wrote...

Exactly, I still remember that fight with the 3 Krogan Battlemasters on Virmire on Insanity..........Painfull

And that is why Soldier should have Liara with him.  Just Lift or Singularity a Krogan before he hits Immunity and then shoot him.  Or if you had it available you can ragdol and then hit Throw... in that particular section it is hard to get them to fly to the "edge" of the map and get instakilled, but it is doable.

As for the main topic of this thread, I guess the question should be "what role should each class have?"

In the other games even though there was some overlap I think the classes were still more defined, moreso in ME2 than ME1, but in either of those moreso than ME3.  The combo system and changes to "signature" powers are to blame here, IMO.

If we were to re-engineer the game, where should the Soldier be?  In ME1 he was indeed the best tank (Sentinel was actually fairly close but Immunity trumped Barrier because it offered some protection against shield bypassing attacks in that game), and while he had all the weapons he wasn't really better with any of them than the other classes that shared the weapons, most notably with the Sniper Rifle compared to Infiltrator.

ME2 rolls around and he is definitely not the best tank, but in terms of weapon proficiency he gets AR's as an exclusive for the early game, and is the only class that can therefore have the advanced variant of SG, AR or SR.  He is also better with every weapon except the single shot snipers, which are best on Infiltrator (not a big deal early game though...).  In any event, good with nearly all weapons (no smgs, oh well) and was fairly survivable.

ME3 you don't get any special guns, your weight capacity isn't particularly any better than anyone elses, and they don't give you bonus accuracy and stability (which would make sense since they stripped accuracy out of ARush and Stability is essentially a new mechanic).  You are sort of the "ammo master" but not really particularly more proficient with weapons.  Toughness is another step back. 

I would be inclined to keep Soldier as one of the tougher classes, and give him better weapon proficiency.  Specifically here are the changes:

Adrenaline Rush should get 40% DR in the Hardening evolution, especially with the "lengthened" base recharge time compared to ME2.  MP already gets this.  I do not think base cooldown should be lowered like MP, and in fact due to other changes I would probably make base CD 12s.

Concussive Shot base CD increased to 10s.  Force increased to 600N, Damage to 200.  This is partly an attempt to take out some "gimicky-ness" from Soldier, although it wouldn't completely eliminate it...

Incendiary Ammo Evolution 6 Explosive Burst reduced to 100 and is no longer subject to Power Damage bonus.

Combat Mastery Rank 1 Weight Capacity increased to 35.  Rank 3 Weight Capacity bonus increased to 45.  Squad Weapon Damage bonus eliminated, and replaced by Accuracy and Stability with +15% bonus to Accuracy and +25% bonus to Stability.

Those are of course rough places to start.  I did not test any of this (some would be impossible to test w/o a patch).

Modifié par capn233, 27 août 2012 - 02:49 .

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
DLC weapons by nature are very powerful that's how they sell. Locust made non-soldiers enjoyable for me and enabled players more options on the Collector Ship since they already had an SMG that was basically an AR. That was it's role.

Precisely, so I don't understand why you consider having ARs from the start to be such a major thing in the soldier's favour - by your logic, the soldier was nerfed back when they brought out the Locust.

Only two out of six classes had adrenaline burst. Vangaurd was one of them but he wasn't a caster more like a biotic soldier. 

Conceptually, yes - in practical terms the Vanguard was a caster. It didn't have anywhere near the resilience of the other combat-orientated classes and had far better CC and direct damage powers.

The point is that Marksman was an easy skill to spam, so arguing that keeping up Marksman was a major issue with pistols doesn't have any merit (hell, killing 100 enemies with a pistol caused Marksman to last 25% longer...)

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 août 2012 - 05:03 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

Locust wasn't part of the vanilla game and even then non-soldiers still did not have access to the only LMG in ME2. In other words ARs were still balanced around soldiers regardless of the Locust. Come ME3 the very same ARs all take major nerfs in performance, functionality, DPS, RoF, clip size, reserve ammo, all because everyone can use them, imo. A loss for soldiers.

Vanguard could spam barrier and along with the soldier could specialize in shock trooper. Not exactly squishy and if you want to ignore the four other classes that couldn't spam talents feel free but adpet/engineer gained little by taking more powers.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 27 août 2012 - 07:36 .

[This is the End My Friend]

I thought the only reason to even bother with the soldier was for the challenge, which hasn't changed.

Modifié par General Slotts, 27 août 2012 - 08:12 .

[Zaidra]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

I just don't see the purpose in the soldier class anymore. He doesn't excel in anything. He can't tank like he used to (as in ME1), he can't do the highest DPS anymore (like in ME2), he can't carry all the guns without penalty, he doesn't even have his signature class exclusive anymore the assault rifles. A lot of people (myself included) only play him out of class loyalty in ME3.

Where as the sentinel soldier actually plays more like a traditional soldier at least in the ME1 style. It just feels right to me.

As someone who plays a soldier constantly, I completely agree with you. There's just no point in soldiers anymore. All of their class specialties got taken away. They either need a serious buff or bioware isn't balancing their game right.

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Locust wasn't part of the vanilla game and even then non-soldiers still did not have access to the only LMG in ME2.

What has being part of the vanilla game got to do with it? Your whole argument for the soldier being nerfed is that back in ME2, it had ARs, and now everyone else does - this is exactly the same situation we faced back in ME2, the fact that the Locust wasn't in vanilla doesn't have any relevance to that.

Besides, having access to the LMG was meaningless - all the best soldier builds took the Widow and used the Mattock. It wasn't something that translated into a major buff for soldiers.

In other words ARs were still balanced around soldiers regardless of the Locust. Come ME3 the very same ARs all take major nerfs in performance, functionality, DPS, RoF, clip size, reserve ammo, all because everyone can use them, imo. A loss for soldiers.

You have no idea why the ME2 ARs were nerfed, but since they were available to everyone after a certain choice was made in ME2, it doesn't seem sensible to assert that the reason was because they were now available to everyone. Why would that be a justification for nerfing them? Furthermore, why would the soldier, who uses Assault Rifles the best thanks to his powers and passives, suffer the most from a nerf? Surely that logic would say the classes who were most dependant on the stats of the rifle itself would be most affected?

For that matter, you still haven't explained why a bunch of low-end assault rifles being nerfed is even relevant. I mean, so what? Why is your soldier using things like Avengers (which were a load of rubbish before their ME3 nerf) and not using the top-end ARs like the Harrier and Particle Rifle, for which they are well-suited with their combination of AR and Explosive Incendiary Ammo?

Vanguard could spam barrier and along with the soldier could specialize in shock trooper.

Barrier only worked on gunfire. Immunity worked on everything. Their resiliance wasn't even in the same ball-park, I'm surprised you aren't aware of that already.

It seems that you've decided that soldiers aren't strong enough any more on the basis that they don't get special weapons all to themselves, as your argument for their underpowered nature goes in circles, or doesn't make sense. They still kick out the best DPS from guns. They still use guns the best. They still have the best choice of ammo. Why is that not enough?

Modifié par JaegerBane, 27 août 2012 - 10:19 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

JaegerBane wrote...

What has being part of the vanilla game got to do with it? Your whole argument for the soldier being nerfed is that back in ME2, it had ARs, and now everyone else does - this is exactly the same situation we faced back in ME2, the fact that the Locust wasn't in vanilla doesn't have any relevance to that.

Not everyone buys DLC and what you don't grasp is that non-soldiers had to either use their bonus power for ARs in ME1 or had to skip another weapon choice for them in ME2. In other words there was a tradeoff and ARs weren't free.

While soldiers could use any weapon they wanted and still be effective ARs were part of their gimmick like it or not.

JaegerBane wrote...

Besides, having access to the LMG was meaningless - all the best soldier builds took the Widow and used the Mattock. It wasn't something that translated into a major buff for soldiers.

In your own post from a Mattock vs Revenant debate thread you took an entirely different position.

JaegerBane wrote...

The issue here is that they're both
intended for completely different styles of play. The particular style
of play that the Rev favours doesn't work properly if you're using a
weapon that burns it's stock in a single AR and requires you to
relentlessly run around picking up clips. The Rev is intended for
running and gunning against many opponents, as evidenced by it's full
auto capability and the clip to support it. *Obviously*, trying to use
the Revenant as a battle rifle is going to produce a skewed result, and
it works vice versa, too.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/261/index/4764533/1

JaegerBane wrote...For that matter, you still haven't explained why a bunch of low-end assault rifles being nerfed is even relevant. I mean, so what? Why is your soldier using things like Avengers (which were a load of rubbish before their ME3 nerf) and not using the top-end ARs like the Harrier and Particle Rifle, for which they are well-suited with their combination of AR and Explosive Incendiary Ammo?

I care because most of the weapon are crap in ME3 the very same weapons that were either good or at the very least ok in ME2. Harrier and Particle Rifle are DLC. Again not everyone buys DLC so I'm not sure why you fixate so much on it.

JaegerBane wrote...It seems that you've decided that soldiers aren't strong enough any more on the basis that they don't get special weapons all to themselves, as your argument for their underpowered nature goes in circles, or doesn't make sense. They still kick out the best DPS from guns. They still use guns the best. They still have the best choice of ammo. Why is that not enough?

I couldn't have made my position more clear. Everyone understands but you. Make the soldier like he was in ME1 or ME2.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 28 août 2012 - 04:19 .

[capn233]

Well theoretically the "best" Soldier build did have the Mattock, mainly due to how it was massively overpowered during time dilation.

If you didn't have the Mattock, like I did not, then Widow Soldier is a decent choice, but it really is probably not better than a Soldier with the Viper and either the Revenant or Claymore. Granted, I thought Widow Soldier was quite easy to play (unless you are doing caolila's Aggressive Sniper Soldier and always firing unscoped at point-blank range) but I really I don't think it is necessarily better than the other two advanced guns as far as a complete build goes.

There are a multitude of problems with the balance in ME3, but most of the rapid fire weapons in the game, and especially the AR class as a whole, should be doing more damage and probably should weigh more as well. If they would have also given the Accuracy and Stability bonus, either in Passive or rolled into ARush (the latter necessitating either elimination or reworking of Marksman) and upped Soldier's Weight Capacity bonuses in the early evolutions of Combat Mastery, we would have seen a Soldier that was indeed better with at least a group of weapons as compared to every other class.

I haven't weighed in on it, but the Locust was really only better than the Avenger, and perhaps the Collector rifle (which was not nearly as widespread amongst as the Locust I would imagine). Sure, it is a good AR substitute on for Caster's that QQ'd that they didn't get AR's, but if I am a Soldier I do not miss that gun whatsoever, and if I am honest I greatly preferred the Shuriken or Tempest as my SMG and a Pistol for ranged work.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^Actually, the standard accepted AR for both the ME2 Widow and Claymore Soldiers was the Mattock. For those who didn't have/like it, the accepted substitute was the Vindicator... The Widow Soldier was considered the best Soldier build because it could take the most potent weapons of each class: Mattock, GPS, Widow, Carnifex/Phalanx. Because SRs worked the way they did in ME2, the Widow Soldier could incidentally run a similar playstyle to the Claymore Soldier, which is what Caolla did. In any case, the Mattock was considered THE AR to use on the Soldier whenever possible, because of its raw power and insane synergy with ARush.

ME3 screwed up a lot of things with the weapons. The main problem was the removal of weapon class damage modifiers in favor of a dumbed down standard based on RoF... which basically made the SG the king of all weapon classes. Really, apart from a relative handful of exceptions, most non-SGs are overweight and underpowered... eg: the Katana is waaay better than the Avenger, Predator and probably the Mantis.

In ME2, with good shooting, the Locust was just great. If you landed consistent headshots, the thing was probably almost as hard hitting as the Mattock (w/o ARush). It didn't really stagger, but it was more accurate than the Mattock. It also came with an ample ammo supply, unlike the Mattock. Most importantly, it had a bonus modifier against armor, in addition to being strong vs. shields/barriers. This made it a HUGE boon for non-Soldier classes because it was a true, all-purpose gun that was available very early and freed up a weapon training slot which would've otherwise been spent on Assault Rifle training... Note that this was ME2, back when the only other true all-purpose gun was the GPS (this and the Locust were the only guns that you could consistently play through an entire mission with, w/o ever swapping out).

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
Not everyone buys DLC and what you don't grasp is that non-soldiers had to either use their bonus power for ARs in ME1 or had to skip another weapon choice for them in ME2.

I grasp that just fine - the reason I brought it up is because your entire argument for the soldiers in the context Assault Rifles depended on them being some sort of major boon that elevated them up to positions of relative power, and that by giving that to every class, they were nerfed into oblivion. My point was that assault rifles were effectively given to everyone in ME2 without apparently nerfing them therefore your argument doesn't work.

Trying to hide behind the fact it was a DLC is pointless - you're arguing about the class balance based on what weapons were available. Unless you're going to claim the soldier was only nerfed if you bought DLCs, I don't see what significance this has to what you're saying.

In other words there was a tradeoff and ARs weren't free.

Absolutely - the point was that having access to the ARs didn't make that much of a difference. But this difference is apparently the reason why the soldiers are nerfed to hell, so perhaps you can understand why your argument is confusing.

While soldiers could use any weapon they wanted and still be effective ARs were part of their gimmick like it or not.

I fully agree they were a gimmick, but you're arguing about class power, not gimmicks.

JaegerBane wrote...
In your own post from a Mattock vs Revenant debate thread you took an entirely different position.

If you're going to quote-mine from posts made years ago under a different context, you might want to make sure you've understood what the post was about. The post you've mentioned, for example, was pointing out that the Revenant made for running and gunning. It certainly wasn't claiming that it was better than the Mattock overall, and frankly, I'm not sure how you managed to miss that.... since, 'other people' as you later mention seemed to get it just fine.

I care because most of the weapon are crap in ME3 the very same weapons that were either good or at the very least ok in ME2. Harrier and Particle Rifle are DLC. Again not everyone buys DLC so I'm not sure why you fixate so much on it.

Its probably because you're fixating on Assault Rifles as some massive blow to soldiers. I give you examples of assault rifles that are none of these things you mention and the only argument you have is that 'they're DLC' - what is your actual argument then? That the soldier relies on DLCs? Where does the Falcon and Saber sit, given their effectiveness?

I couldn't have made my position more clear. Everyone understands but you. Make the soldier like he was in ME1 or ME2.

Condescension aside, I guess my confusion stems from the fact that you're claiming its undeprowered and flat out ignoring any mention of the soldier's strengths. You're focusing almost exclusively on what the soldier doesn't have and ignore various things that don't fit your argument, such as minor details like having the best weapon DPS and best selection of ammos in the game. One would assume they'd be at least partially relevant tou what you're arguing, but they never seem to appear - just moans about how the soldier is no longer a thresher maw and irrelevant stuff about the Adept, so you'll have to forgive a bit of confusion.

I mean, you still haven't adequately explained why weak ARs available to everyone nerf the soldier and only the soldier. It doesn't make any sense. Just look at Athenau's videos of the SMG soldier - with footage like that, you really need more than just excuses about DLCs and quote-mining to make a convincing argument that the soldier is underpowered. Or even that the sentinel is a better soldier, for that matter.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 28 août 2012 - 07:02 .

[JaegerBane]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...
ME3 screwed up a lot of things with the weapons. The main problem was the removal of weapon class damage modifiers in favor of a dumbed down standard based on RoF... which basically made the SG the king of all weapon classes. Really, apart from a relative handful of exceptions, most non-SGs are overweight and underpowered... eg: the Katana is waaay better than the Avenger, Predator and probably the Mantis.

I'd also add that certain weapon classes were boosted to the point insanity - heavy pistols outside of the Predator and Eagle are *crazy* powerful for what they are.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

^ Yeah, very much... I love SGs as much as anyone else, but they should not be the King of All Weapons. Same with Heavy Pistols; of which I feel the Talon X is the worst offender (Talon = SG + HP = "Darling Princess of All Weapons"). You should not be able to out-snipe SRs with SGs and HPs should not be able to easily out-DPS ARs, it makes no sense.

Obviously the 3 Awesome Firefight Weapons of Mass Pwnage have muddied up the mix even more, but in general, it makes no sense that BW removed the RPS system of ME2 to replace it with the SG Pantheon of ME3.

[JaegerBane]

Locutus_of_BORG wrote...

^ Yeah, very much... I love SGs as much as anyone else, but they should not be the King of All Weapons. Same with Heavy Pistols; of which I feel the Talon X is the worst offender (Talon = SG + HP = "Darling Princess of All Weapons"). You should not be able to out-snipe SRs with SGs and HPs should not be able to easily out-DPS ARs, it makes no sense.

Obviously the 3 Awesome Firefight Weapons of Mass Pwnage have muddied up the mix even more, but in general, it makes no sense that BW removed the RPS system of ME2 to replace it with the SG Pantheon of ME3.

Indeed. That said, I have to admit that the SMGs have really gained a boost in recent weeks - first with the Firefght Pack's Punisher and cockroach SMG and now, with a raft of new mods. The Hurricane with the recoil system and high-velocity barrel is truly an awesome sight to behold, and its only a middling SMG

I think the issue with shotguns is that they were very much a niche weapon in ME2 - the base shotguns had very short effective ranges, and judging where the DLC shotties were going, it was pretty clear they were getting boosted back to ME1 levels. That said, they came with the weights to justify that power - shotguns typically weigh ridiculous levels.

[N7 Whiskey]

I've been playing Soldier w/Energy Drain to set off Tech Bursts and it works great. But, my plan was to play long enough to unlock Marksman and stack it with AR to create the ultimate weapon warrior, but I just found out I can't do that.

Soldier is still very good but I'm starting over as soon as I decide on a class build. 

[Binary_Helix 1]

JaegerBane wrote...

My point was that assault rifles were effectively given to everyone in ME2 without apparently nerfing them therefore your argument doesn't work.

ARs weren't given to everyone. They were a bonus no different than soldier taking a biotic power but biotics were still balanced around casters regardless. ARs were likewise balanced around soldiers until ME3 changed that. Pretty simple.

JaegerBane wrote...I fully agree they were a gimmick, but you're arguing about class power, not gimmicks.

The way I see it they were one and the same. The only thing kept intact from ME1 to ME2 unlike their signature powers.

JaegerBane wrote...

If you're going to quote-mine from posts made years ago under a different context, you might want to make sure you've understood what the post was about. The post you've mentioned, for example, was pointing out that the Revenant made for running and gunning. It certainly wasn't claiming that it was better than the Mattock overall, and frankly, I'm not sure how you managed to miss that.... since, 'other people' as you later mention seemed to get it just fine.

Your intent was clear. Don't backpedal. You spent post after post arguing in favor of the Revenant. I'll happily quote more posts and in full context if you'd like. You certainely didn't think Mattock was the "best" back then and you were right.

JaegerBane wrote...
Its probably because you're fixating on Assault Rifles as some massive blow to soldiers. I give you examples of assault rifles that are none of these things you mention and the only argument you have is that 'they're DLC' - what is your actual argument then? That the soldier relies on DLCs? Where does the Falcon and Saber sit, given their effectiveness?

DLC sold seperate to the main game isn't really much of a defense of the current system. It needs to be reworked entirely.

JaegerBane wrote...Condescension aside, I guess my confusion stems from the fact that you're claiming its undeprowered and flat out ignoring any mention of the soldier's strengths. You're focusing almost exclusively on what the soldier doesn't have and ignore various things that don't fit your argument, such as minor details like having the best weapon DPS and best selection of ammos in the game. One would assume they'd be at least partially relevant tou what you're arguing, but they never seem to appear - just moans about how the soldier is no longer a thresher maw and irrelevant stuff about the Adept, so you'll have to forgive a bit of confusion.

It's not just me saying soldier is underpowered in ME3 so are a lot of other people in this thread and beyond.

JaegerBane wrote...I mean, you still haven't adequately explained why weak ARs available to everyone nerf the soldier and only the soldier. It doesn't make any sense. Just look at Athenau's videos of the SMG soldier - with footage like that, you really need more than just excuses about DLCs and quote-mining to make a convincing argument that the soldier is underpowered. Or even that the sentinel is a better soldier, for that matter.

It's not my job to convince you of anything. You don't even believe there is a problem. In fact you thought soldier was hilariously OP in the first two games. A nerfed soldier is exactly what you wanted so what is there to convince you of?

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 29 août 2012 - 06:25 .

[swk3000]

Ooooh. This is one of *those* threads. I actually thought you were serious. Sorry about that.

[RedCaesar97]

At this point, I find that calling the Soldiers the weakest class is like calling someone the poorest Billionaire.

Modifié par RedCaesar97, 29 août 2012 - 12:55 .

[RedCaesar97]

The Soldier may have been the best tank in Mass Effect 1 (ME1), but they were not the only tank in ME1. Every class--except perhaps the Engineer--could tank to some degree in ME1. 

By the way, I would also argue that in ME1 a Commando Infiltrator with Shotguns was a better Soldier than the Soldier itself: it had Immunity, armor skill, and Commando passive (improved Immunity, weapon damage, Marksman and Assassination cooldowns), plus it had Electronics and Decryption so it could unlock everything by itself so you could take whoever you wanted as squadmates. Plus with Pistols with Marksman, Sniper Rifles, and Shotguns, it could do everything the Soldier could do.(On a side note, an Operative Infiltrator with AI Hacking was a better Operative Engineer than the Engineer itself. And a Vanguard with Singularity was a better Adept than the Adept itself.)

As for Assault Rifles: 

• In ME1, Pistols were usable from the start, whereas Assault Rifles sucked until level IV when they started gaining enough accuracy to remain usable. Marksman, particularly Master Marksman, could also out-DPS (damage per second) the assault rifle. All classes except the Sentinel could gain Master Marksman. Assault Rifles were only really useful in that they always had high DPS. I know a lot of people took Assault Rifles as a bonus power, but I know at least one poster on these forums said he took it on his Adept so he did not have to waste valuable points in the armor skill to unlock Pistols.
• In ME2, Assault Rifles were the "all round" weapons, good against all defenses but not particularly great. Only the Soldier could use them from the start. That also meant they started with the Avenger, flat out the worst gun in the game. Even as someone who really likes the Soldier, I would rather have SMGs than assault rifles. In my opinion, only the Vindicator and Mattock are worth considering and the Mattock is considered overpowered under Adrenaline Rush, for good reason I might add. The Revenant is just an upgraded Avenger, and it is outperformed by SMGs against shields, and the sniper rifles and pistols against armor.
• In ME3, a lot of the assault rifles just are not very good. But the same can be said of SMGs; the Shiruken, Tempest, and Locust are all garbage now. Which is too bad because I was looking forward to finally using them on the Soldier. So saying that the assault rifles were nerfed because all class could carry all weapons is ignoring the fact that the SMGs were nerfed even harder.

As for the Sentinel tank being a better tank than the Soldier in ME3? Of course it is, but that takes advantage of taking a second shield power, whether that was by design or by accident I cannot tell. And the Infiltrator can also ignore weapon weight, but that is because of how Cloak cooldown works. I would say that is bad design, but what do I know about programming? (not much)

As pointed out, by JaegerBane and others, the Soldier still has the highest weapon DPS in ME3. As also pointed out by others, the Soldier may no longer be able to carry a great load of weapons, but the Soldier does not need to carry all those weapons. In fact, all classes only really need 1 weapon to get by, even the Soldier. Just pick your favorite weapon and go nuts.

Modifié par RedCaesar97, 29 août 2012 - 12:56 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

swk3000 wrote...

Ooooh. This is one of *those* threads. I actually thought you were serious. Sorry about that.

What the hell is that suppose to mean? We're all having a civil discussion. People have different points of view. Deal with it.

[Binary_Helix 1]

RedCaesar97 wrote...

As also pointed out by others, the Soldier may no longer be able to carry a great load of weapons, but the Soldier does not need to carry all those weapons. In fact, all classes only really need 1 weapon to get by, even the Soldier. Just pick your favorite weapon and go nuts.

Using all the weapons is how you got the most out of the soldier. It made playing him fun and a unique experience.

www.youtube.com/watch

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 29 août 2012 - 06:42 .