104 réponses à ce sujet

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
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.

Its not simple - in one game they were treated as a bonus power but were demonstrably ineffective, in the next they were nothing to do with bonus powers, so the only thing that is simple about stating 'they were balanced around soldiers' is that is plain wrong. The ME1 AR Adept was largely a choice metagaming - it meant you could spend more points on your biotics, it was nothing to do with the AR itself.

The Locust was basically an AR, and hence the fact it was available to everyone should have nerfed the soldier back in ME2. It didn't, so your logic isn't right.

The reason I keep mentioning this is because, frankly, your argument appears to be based purely on the concept of soldiers having assault rifles as some kind of status symbol, rather than there being any issue about relative class power. I mean, hell, you can't tell the difference between a gimmick and bonus.

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.

Like I said, you haven't understood the context of the post. I'll save you quoting any more posts and do it for you, from the same thread:

JaegerBane wrote...
If the point that the Mattock is more versatile, then yes, that is true. If the point is that the Mattock has a higher DPS, that is also true. The Mattock definitely has more advantages then the Revenant, no question

Clearly, either you can't understand english, or you haven't read the thread properly. Trying to argue the meaning of a year old post with the post author really isn't a good idea.

Hell, I vaguely recall doubting the Mattock's performance against the Revenant not long after its released, but I changed my mind when I tested them. What relevance would that have here, though?

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

Ordinarily, I'd agree with you - in fact IIRC this was exactly my issue about the full-auto ARs back in ME2 - but you're actually using a few guns from one class to argue a class that can completely ignore them if they so wish is nerfed. That's quite a leap.

Not to mention the SP Falcon and Saber aren't DLC guns, so your issue about DLC is completely irrelevant.

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

It wasn't just one person saying the ME2 Vanguard was underpowered either, that didn't stop them from being wrong. Look, I fully agree that its been nerfed, there's just a difference between being nerfed, and being underpowered.

Since plenty of people (like Athenau) apparently can make the class into a steamroller, it does kind of place the burden on you to make your argument clearer, since you're basically saying that his videos are just... well, wrong.

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?

You don't need to convince me at all. I just assumed you at least believed that you were trying to put forward a sensible argument, rather than just complaining your preferred class isn't teh pwnz0rz.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 29 août 2012 - 05:47 .

[E_rik]

swk3000 wrote...

JaegerBane wrote...
I think the problem with your stance is that you're confusing the concept with the way things actually worked.

I'm stealing this statement, but my post in general is directed to the OP.

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. The Soldier has the best weapons training, making them much more deadly with weapons than any other class who tries to use the same weapon. In ME3, that's exactly what they are. Put a weapon in their hands, and they'll out-damage any other class. After all, they get all of the following:

+25% Weapon Damage from passive
+20% Headshot Damage from passive
+25% Headshot Damage from ammo power
+42% Weapon Damage when using Incendiary Ammo backed by passive boost
+75% Weapon Damage under Adrenaline Rush

And all of that is just based on what they have by default; it doesn't take into account all the other sources of weapon damage that any class has access to!

In comparison, the Sentinel gets +5% Weapon Damage from their passive. That's it. Oh, some of their powers increase damage to affected targets for a duration, but we're talking about the Tank Sentinel here, so their horrendously long cooldowns render those sources too unreliable to take into account..

As I said: the Sentinel is not a Soldier, and never will be. Being able to use all weapons doesn't make you a Soldier. After all, being able to push a button doesn't make you an MIT graduate.

(Was that a Half Life reference I saw in the end?)

And all those increases aren't mentioning mods or the potential 50% weapon damage you can get from a full Hahne-Kedar armour set, or 25% weapon damage from EB 5. 

Add all those increases together, and you can do a grand total of 262% weapon damage. And thats not even counting the shadow broker upgradest that I'm too lazy to check.

[zeypher]

Look as a soldier with upgrades, passives and a HK set, my soldier sits at 100% extra weapon dmg WITHOUT Adrenaline rush. You start factoring in AR, Eplosive burst of 170 dmg and headshots. Yea thats a lot of damage.

[Binary_Helix 1]

JaegerBane wrote...

Its not simple - in one game they were treated as a bonus power but were demonstrably ineffective, in the next they were nothing to do with bonus powers, so the only thing that is simple about stating 'they were balanced around soldiers' is that is plain wrong.

Assault rifle training was a bonus in the first two games. It doesn't matter what form that bonus takes it's a bonus regardless.

JaegerBane wrote...The Locust was basically an AR, and hence the fact it was available to everyone should have nerfed the soldier back in ME2. It didn't, so your logic isn't right.

Do I have to repeat myself? The Locust's existence has no bearing on ARs especially when it's an AR in SMG form.

JaegerBane wrote...The reason I keep mentioning this is because, frankly, your argument appears to be based purely on the concept of soldiers having assault rifles as some kind of status symbol, rather than there being any issue about relative class power. I mean, hell, you can't tell the difference between a gimmick and bonus.

What makes a class unique and worthwhile has been my position from the start. I mean, hell, you realize that now?

JaegerBane wrote...Like I said, you haven't understood the context of the post. I'll save you quoting any more posts and do it for you, from the same thread: blah blah blah

Clearly, either you can't understand english, or you haven't read the thread properly. Trying to argue the meaning of a year old post with the post author really isn't a good idea. It's off-topic and it makes you look like you don't understand what you're talking about.

Actually it's highly relevant when you made a claim that you didn't even support at one time. You even quoted yourself out of context which is hilarious because you accused me of that. Here is the full quote that you didn't want to post.

JaegerBane wrote...

If the point that the Mattock is more
versatile, then yes, that is true. If the point is that the Mattock has a
higher DPS, that is also true. The Mattock definitely has more
advantages then the Revenant, no question - but if your entire playstyle
revolves around positioning and maintaining a high damage output for a
relatively long time, the simple fact of the matter is that your
definition of 'long enough' is likely to be insufficient for someone
else, and whichever weapon best fits the bill will be the optimal
choice, which is the entire point behind the OP's question.

It comes down to this, swn - either you're too stupid to understand the
effect of the different characteristics (something I frankly don't
believe given the articulation of your argument) or you've locked
yourself into a selection bias where you will refuse to consider or
gloss over anything negative about the Mattock - in either case, there's
little point continuing the debate, since it's just going to go in
circles. I can only hope the OP can recognise the point being made here -


That these two weapons are too different to compare directly
and expect to glean anything meaningful from the comparison. The only
way they can be meaningfully compared is under the context of the
player's preferred style.

JaegerBane wrote...You don't need to convince me at all. I just assumed you at least believed that you were trying to put forward a sensible argument, rather than just complaining your preferred class isn't teh pwnz0rz.

The world doesn't revolve around you despite what you may think. I give my opnion and you take it or leave it. Since this thread has generated a lot of replies and well over a thousand views I'd say I put forward a pretty sensible perspective.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 29 août 2012 - 06:26 .

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
Assault rifle training was a bonus in the first two games. It doesn't matter what form that bonus takes it's a bonus regardless.

Does this nitpicking have a point? Does this have anything to do with what was being discussed (that AR training is not equivalent to an extra power)?

Do I have to repeat myself? The Locust's existence has no bearing on ARs especially when it's an AR in SMG form.

Your whole argument depends on only soldiers having ARs. The Locust is an AR in the SMG slot. Claiming it has 'no bearing' makes no sense whatsoever.

Unless, of course, you're not talking about the relative power in the class and are purely concerned about having an AR slot rather than a gun that serves as one. In which case this isn't anything to do with being underpowered.

What makes a class unique and worthwhile has been my position from the start. I mean, hell, you realize that now?

No, your position has been that they've been underpowered. Being unique is nothing to do with that. If you don't even understand your own argument, how do you expect anyone else to?

Actually it's highly relevant when you made a claim that you didn't even support at one time. You even quoted yourself out of context which is hilarious because you accused me of that. Here is the fullt quote that you didn't want to post.

You've linked the post in this thread - are you honestly trying to claim I'm trying to hide something here? Anyone interested can freely look at it, why would I 'not want to post it'?

Besides, back then I was claiming that the low ammo supply of the Mattock might not suit a player who prefers to spam the fire button - now I'm pointing out that having access to the Rev isn't some major advantage. There's hardly anything contradictory there, the only hilarious thing is you're desperately trying to use a year old post and actually arguing with me as to what I meant back then to try and back up your meaningless argument.

I mean, good god, I said in plain english that the Mattock was a much better gun, and yet you're still arguing I actually meant the opposite.... talk about desperation. Does that crystal ball of yours say anything else?

The world doesn't revolve around you despite what you may think.

What the....? Since when was I claiming this? Have you found another post from a year ago where I claimed that it didn't and that I actually must mean I did?

Since this thread has generated a lot of replies and well over a thousand views I'd say I put forward a pretty sensible perspective.

You'd say that, really? So by your logic, because lots of people look at something, it must be sensible? I'm beginning to see why you've convinced yourself soldiers have it so tough, with thinking like that.

I think we might as well leave it at that, as this thread is going OT. The impression you give is that you just want the soldier to have loads of stuff just for the lolz, and you don't have any coherent reasoning behind it. You don't need that to have an opinion, but you do need it if you're going to debate it.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 29 août 2012 - 06:39 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

[quote]JaegerBane wrote...

Does this nitpicking have a point? Does this have anything to do with what was being discussed (that AR training is not equivalent to an extra power)?[/quote]


It's not nitpicking it's you overlooking a fact because it's inconvenient.


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...Your whole argument depends on only soldiers having ARs. The Locust is an AR in the SMG slot. Claiming it has 'no bearing' makes no sense whatsoever.[/quote]


It's DLC as well. I feel like we've gone over this already...DLC weapons are suppose to be overpowered hence $$$


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...No, your position has been that they've been underpowered. Being unique is nothing to do with that. If you don't even understand your own argument, how do you expect anyone else to?[/quote]

Wrong. If you weren't so fixated on tangents you wouldn't miss the forest for the trees. My post from page one.

[quote]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. [/quote]



[quote]JaegerBane wrote...You've linked the post in this thread - are you honestly trying to claim I'm trying to hide something here? Anyone interested can freely look at it, why would I 'not want to post it'? [/quote][/quote]

Don't act cute now. You were the one babbling about being quoted out of context as if I was misrepresenting you.


[quote]JaegerBane wrote...Besides, back then I was claiming that the low ammo supply of the Mattock might not suit a player who prefers to spam the fire button - now I'm pointing out that having access to the Rev isn't some major advantage. There's hardly anything contradictory there, the only hilarious thing is you're desperately trying to use a year old post and actually arguing with me as to what I meant back then to try and back up your meaningless argument.

I mean, good god, I said in plain english that the Mattock was a much better gun, and yet you're still arguing I actually meant the opposite.... talk about desperation. Does that crystal ball of yours say anything else?[/quote]


You're changing the goalposts because you didn't expect to be confronted with your own words.

Mattock wasn't by any means the "best". I mean, good god, you said that yourself just man up to it.



[quote]JaegerBane wrote...I think we might as well leave it at that, as this thread is going OT. The impression you give is that you just want the soldier to have loads of stuff just for the lolz, and you don't have any coherent reasoning behind it. You don't need that to have an opinion, but you do need it if you're going to debate it.

[/quote]

I've more than adequately presented my position. Plenty agree maybe not completely but to varying extents. You and I are simply at an impasse due to philopshical differences. I recognize that unlike you and your insistence on disparagement.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 29 août 2012 - 07:18 .

[JaegerBane]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
It's not nitpicking it's you overlooking a fact because it's inconvenient.

Inconvenient? Your whole point was that a caster had to sacrifice a power to get ARs in ME1. In ME2 they didn't need to sacrifice any powers, hence it can't be 'the same thing' by any sensible measure. It's not a a question of it being 'inconvenient', its a question of it having nothing to do with your original point.

It's DLC as well. I feel like we've gone over this already...DLC weapons are suppose to be overpowered hence $$$

But the Locust wasn't overpowered....

Wrong. If you weren't so fixated on tangents you wouldn't miss the forest for the trees. My post from page one.

Hmmm, well, this is one of your posts from page one...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

I just don't see the purpose in the soldier class anymore. He doesn't excel in anything.

Perhaps you need to practice what your preach and keep yourself off your own tangents - there sn't many ways of trying to claim both this and claim you're not talking about power.

Then again, you're trying to claim I said one thing - and quote it none the less - and claim I actually meant the opposite, so I guess I shouldn;t be surprised you'll do the same with your own posts.

Don't act cute now. You were the one babbling about being quoted out of context as if I was misrepresenting you.

In response to your grasping at straws and quoting a post saying I though the Revenant was a better machne gun than the Mattock, and trying to use that to claim I thought it was a better gun.

I don't believe for a second you were actually stupid enough to confuse it - you were pretty obviously trying to get anything you could to back up your argument - but trying to defend it by simply shouting 'NO U' is silly.

You're changing the goalposts because you didn't expect to be confronted with your own words.

Mattock wasn't by any means the "best". I mean, good god, you said that yourself just man up to it.

Tell me something Binary - are you actually saying that 'I think a gun is more versatile, has better DPS and more advnantages' equates to it being worse? Really? Are you really going to try to make that ridiculous point fly?

I've more than adequately presented my position. Plenty agree maybe not completely but to varying extents. You and I are simply at an impasse due to philopshical differences. I recognize that unlike you and your insistence on disparagement.

Hell, *I* agree with you that the soldier is nerfed. I just think that your argument that the soldier is underpowered lacks any basis whatsoever, and any attempt I've made to understand your position has been met by a barrage of nonsense, insults, conflicting stances and some weirdo attempt at trying to use stuff I posted a year ago to back up and entirely different argument, so I'm afraid that you've past the point where you can argue some kind of moral high ground, here.

Regardless, I think we've passed the point where anything more worthwhile can come out of this, so I'll leave it at your mention before - you're opinion is that its underpowered, my opinion is that its not, and we'll agree to disagree.

Modifié par JaegerBane, 29 août 2012 - 07:57 .

[swk3000]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

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.

1. I fail to see how 'Mattock vs Revenant' has any bearing at all on whether the Soldier class is under-powered.

2. Even if there was a relevance, you're bringing up information about the ME2 versions of these weapons as proof that the ME3 Soldier has been nerfed.

That's not a relevant argument, and the fact that you are stressing it says to me that you're not really interested in the subject at hand; you just want to argue. Feel free to explain the significance to me. If you can do so, I will apologize and admit I was wrong. Until then, you seem like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and that's not my idea of a good time.

[Binary_Helix 1]

JaegerBane wrote...

Inconvenient? Your whole point was that a caster had to sacrifice a power to get ARs in ME1. In ME2 they didn't need to sacrifice any powers, hence it can't be 'the same thing' by any sensible measure. It's not a a question of it being 'inconvenient', its a question of it having nothing to do with your original point.

My point was they had to sacrfice SOMETHING. In ME2 non-soldiers sacrificed a seperate weapon or elite tier weapon.

JaegerBane wrote...Tell me something Binary - are you actually saying that 'I think a gun is more versatile, has better DPS and more advnantages' equates to it being worse? Really? Are you really going to try to make that ridiculous point fly?

Remember what I said about trying to change goalposts? You're doing it again and thinking nobody will notice.

You claimed Mattock was the "best" and Revenant was irrelevant when in the past you argued (correctly) that they were two entirely different animals each with their own strengths and drawbacks suited more towards different playstyles and really couldn't be compared. I remembered that thread from way back mostly due to agreeing with you.

JaegerBane wrote...Hell *I* agree with you that the soldier is nerfed. I just think that your argument that the soldier is underpowered lacks any basis whatsoever,

You don't even know what you're talking about because too many things are being discussed at once and you're mixing them up while saying I'm confusing or can't convey my point. I said ARs were underpowered. I do find soldiers lacking for a lot of reasons but functionality wise they're ok I just think they suck compared to ME1 and ME2. They need to be more like that.

JaegerBane wrote..and any attempt I've made to understand your position has been met by a barrage of nonsense, insults, conflicting stances and some weirdo attempt at trying to use stuff I posted a year ago to back up and entirely different argument, so I'm afraid that you've past the point where you can argue some kind of moral high ground, here.

Everyone gets my point except you and that's not my problem. Take it up with whoever taught you reading comprehension.

JaegerBane wrote...Regardless, I think we've passed the point where anything more worthwhile can come out of this, so I'll leave it at your mention before - you're opinion is that its underpowered, my opinion is that its not, and we'll agree to disagree.

Fine by me. Sometimes people just don't see things the same way no matter what. Happens all the time in the real world.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 29 août 2012 - 11:38 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

swk3000 wrote...

1. I fail to see how 'Mattock vs Revenant' has any bearing at all on whether the Soldier class is under-powered.

2. Even if there was a relevance, you're bringing up information about the ME2 versions of these weapons as proof that the ME3 Soldier has been nerfed.

That's not a relevant argument, and the fact that you are stressing it says to me that you're not really interested in the subject at hand; you just want to argue. Feel free to explain the significance to me. If you can do so, I will apologize and admit I was wrong. Until then, you seem like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and that's not my idea of a good time.

1. The discussion about the Revenant originally focused on whether soldier had any advantages from ARs beiing exclusive.

2. Many of the weapons in ME3 came directly from ME2 where they performed differently and imo better. What changed? It wasn't just damage multipliers but functionality as well. From clip size, reserve ammo, RoF, accuracy, etc. Soldier is a weapons class so any changes to weapons (good or bad) effects them more than anyone else. ARs in particular were better in ME2. 

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 30 août 2012 - 12:19 .

[swk3000]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

swk3000 wrote...

1. I fail to see how 'Mattock vs Revenant' has any bearing at all on whether the Soldier class is under-powered.

2. Even if there was a relevance, you're bringing up information about the ME2 versions of these weapons as proof that the ME3 Soldier has been nerfed.

That's not a relevant argument, and the fact that you are stressing it says to me that you're not really interested in the subject at hand; you just want to argue. Feel free to explain the significance to me. If you can do so, I will apologize and admit I was wrong. Until then, you seem like you just want to argue for the sake of arguing, and that's not my idea of a good time.

1. The discussion about the Revenant originally focused on whether soldier had any advantages from ARs beiing exclusive. With the only LMG in ME2 being available to them to me that was proof but he disagreed and cited the Mattock as the better choice but his own position was different in the past than now. I thought that was relevant to the debate.

2. Many of the weapons in ME3 came directly from ME2 where they performed differently and imo better. What changed? It wasn't just damage multipliers but functionality as well. From clip size, reserve ammo, RoF, accuracy, etc. Soldier is a weapons class so any changes to weapons (good or bad) effect them more than any other class.

1. Then you're getting bent out of shape over a tangent. You are trying to show that Soldiers having Assault Rifles is an advantage, then getting obsessed with a detail (which Assault Rifle is better) that has nothing to do with the discussion you're currently having. Maybe the Mattock is better, but your point isn't the Mattock; it's that the Revenant was only available to the Soldier. That's it; your point is made, get back to the matter at hand.

2. If we only had the weapons from ME2, then this would be valid. However, the guns that made it from ME2 to ME3 only accounts for 40% of the guns in ME3. You're completely ignoring the other 60% of the weapons. Yes, the guns from ME2 were nerfed. But saying that those nerfs hurt the Soldier isn't neccesarily accurate, as there are other weapons available that could be used with similar or identical results. For example, the Viper in ME2 was a rapid-fire Sniper Rifle, while in ME3 it's rate of fire has been slowed. However, the Raptor, while somewhat weaker, retains the ME2 Viper's firing rate, so someone who enjoyed the ME2 Viper would be likely to use the Raptor and enjoy the same playstyle, regardless of the Viper's nerf.

[capn233]

It is better to ignore the ME2 Mattock in discussions about relative strengths of class as far as the design goes in either game given how overpowered it was under time dilation. Revenant was a good choice in ME2... I liked it the best out of all the advanced guns. I disagree with Red about how it is just a "better Avenger..." It is a lot better. The ammo capacity itself turns it into the only gun you need as a Soldier if you want to play that way. This is certainly not the case with any of the SMGs as Shuriken and Tempest were not good past mid range and the Locust really isn't the greatest in ammo either. Revi also did more DPS than the Locust and had a higher armor multiplier. The only thing Locust has over Revenant is Accuracy, which is not really a factor under Adrenaline Rush.

Avenger was a pretty sad gun, and Locust was better than it I suppose. But it had ok ammo, and early game ME2 just having an extra gun was nice since it was easy to run low on ammo.

I don't suppose there is really anything else to be said on the main topic. I personally haven't been convinced that Soldier didn't take a relative step back in ME3 relative to other classes (maybe it is a case of a step forward for Soldier, but 3 or 4 forward for everyone else). Ah well. I am more irritated by ending up with even more nebulous class designs and a game where most everything feels the same, as opposed to ME2 and even ME1 where all 6 classes felt more distinct to me.

[Binary_Helix 1]

swk3000 wrote...

1. Then you're getting bent out of shape over a tangent. You are trying to show that Soldiers having Assault Rifles is an advantage, then getting obsessed with a detail (which Assault Rifle is better) that has nothing to do with the discussion you're currently having. Maybe the Mattock is better, but your point isn't the Mattock; it's that the Revenant was only available to the Soldier. That's it; your point is made, get back to the matter at hand.

2. If we only had the weapons from ME2, then this would be valid. However, the guns that made it from ME2 to ME3 only accounts for 40% of the guns in ME3. You're completely ignoring the other 60% of the weapons. Yes, the guns from ME2 were nerfed. But saying that those nerfs hurt the Soldier isn't neccesarily accurate, as there are other weapons available that could be used with similar or identical results. For example, the Viper in ME2 was a rapid-fire Sniper Rifle, while in ME3 it's rate of fire has been slowed. However, the Raptor, while somewhat weaker, retains the ME2 Viper's firing rate, so someone who enjoyed the ME2 Viper would be likely to use the Raptor and enjoy the same playstyle, regardless of the Viper's nerf.

1.If you're bothered by anything in MY THREAD feel free not to participate. Opinionated discussions can be contentious.

2. Look at the MP balance changes. ARs and soldiers have been buffed more so than any other weapon type and class. The design choices regarding them were just bad. They need to be reworked now or in future games. That's all I'm saying.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 30 août 2012 - 12:48 .

[RedCaesar97]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...
2. Look at the MP balance changes. ARs and soldiers have been buffed more so than any other weapon type and class. The design choices regarding them were just bad. They need to be reworked now or in future games. That's all I'm saying.

A lot of the balance changes were necessary considering that what works in single player does not work in multiplayer. Adrenaline Rush is a good example. The Hardening and Shield Boost evolutions got a buff in multiplayer since there is no time dilation in multiplayer.

[JaegerBane]

capn233 wrote...
Avenger was a pretty sad gun, and Locust was better than it I suppose. But it had ok ammo, and early game ME2 just having an extra gun was nice since it was easy to run low on ammo.

Its fairly obvious that the Avenger was a placeholder weapon - no advanced character was supposed to be using it, as it didn't do anything well and there were *far* better ARs to use. Even without the Mattock.

That said, the Revenant's main advantage was that it did what the Avenger did, but did it properly. While that's good, so did the Locust, and the Locust was available to anyone who couldn't pick the Rev. It was a DLC gun, but I'd wager there'd be few people who were bothered about class balance but didn't get the Stolen Memory DLC.

Bizarrely, the Shuriken actually had the same DPS as the Revenant until the reload.

I don't suppose there is really anything else to be said on the main topic. I personally haven't been convinced that Soldier didn't take a relative step back in ME3 relative to other classes (maybe it is a case of a step forward for Soldier, but 3 or 4 forward for everyone else).

I think it took a backwards step - I just think that taking a backward step doesn't necessarily mean its underpowered. As I say, I see at as equivalent to where the Adept was in ME2. And the Adept was not underpowered.

[Locutus_of_BORG]

JaegerBane wrote...
I think it took a backwards step - I just think that taking a backward step doesn't necessarily mean its underpowered. As I say, I see at as equivalent to where the Adept was in ME2. And the Adept was not underpowered.

Even this is arguable. Apparently, to this day, there are still those who are incapable of grasping how to defeat even basic enemies with the Adept in ME2.... Anyway, my point is that I don't think the ME3 Soldier is like that; it is still the most straightforward class to use and there never really any point in ME3 that requires you to get creative with it in any way.

[TheIllusiveDan]

Abraham_uk wrote...

You really need to think of what niche each class covers.

Adept: Crowd control, biotic explosions and has a pretty cool grenade..
Vanguard: Short ranged combat, charge/nova combo and limited crowd control
Engineer: Crowd control, distraction, removal of barriers, shields and armour and weapon overheating. Also tech bursts, incendiary and cryo explosions.
Infiltrator: Limited crowd control, sniping and stealth. Has some grenades.
Soldier: Guns. Can perform tech bursts, incendiary and cryo explosions. Also has a grenade. But it's all about the guns. No class does guns better than soldiers. None.
Sentinel: Crowd control through both biotic and tech powers. Grenades, tech bursts, biotic explosions and cryo explosions. In addition, sentinels have tech armour that adds extra durability.


Sentinels are inferior at guns compared to soldiers.
They cannot topple infiltrators or vanguards.
They are slightly better than adepts and engineers due to passive weapon buffs.

Give the sentinel (defense matrix, barrier or fortification) and then your sentinel will be the best tank in the game.


Let's put it this way.
Think of the sentinel as the warrior with a sword and shield.
Think of the soldier as a warrior with a two handed sword.

Which does more damage? Sword and shield or two handed sword?
Which is better defended? Sword and shield or two handed sword?

I kinda feel like you didn't play every single class, and I just want to clear some things up.  An imported ME2 Adept isn't just "crowd control," it has a very powerful solution to every enemy in the game even on insanity.  Reave + Cluster Grenades (you can get up to six throws in SP, with five grenades each) instantly clears large groups of enemies.  Brutes are a joke, as Warp followed by Throw decimates their health.  Bashees and Primes can be taken down in a few seconds, too.  The last battle before Marauder Shields was a cakewalk too because of Warp/Reave/Double Throw.  I've only beat Sentinel and Adept on Insanity so far, but none of the classes are niche classes because they all have so many powers that you can make any class fit for any role. 

[JaegerBane]

TheIllusiveDan wrote...

I kinda feel like you didn't play every single class, and I just want to clear some things up.  An imported ME2 Adept isn't just "crowd control," it has a very powerful solution to every enemy in the game even on insanity.  Reave + Cluster Grenades (you can get up to six throws in SP, with five grenades each) instantly clears large groups of enemies.  Brutes are a joke, as Warp followed by Throw decimates their health.  Bashees and Primes can be taken down in a few seconds, too.  The last battle before Marauder Shields was a cakewalk too because of Warp/Reave/Double Throw.  I've only beat Sentinel and Adept on Insanity so far, but none of the classes are niche classes because they all have so many powers that you can make any class fit for any role. 

Sort of. ME3 is far less about Crowd control in general, so in that respect you're right - the class that previously specialised in crowd control can still do it, but is now primarily a sorceror-style class that specialises in major AoE destruction at the cost of versatility. Which is great, as that's where the Adept should be.

In ME2 their primary weakness was that crowd control was something that was difficult to pull off due to the defence system, which is why they felt like they were a bit of an uphill struggle until you hit the realisation that they were supposed to be doing AoE damage as their main approach.

[Abraham_uk]

TheIllusiveDan wrote...

Abraham_uk wrote...

You really need to think of what niche each class covers.

Adept: Crowd control, biotic explosions and has a pretty cool grenade..

I kinda feel like you didn't play every single class, and I just want to clear some things up.  An imported ME2 Adept isn't just "crowd control," it has a very powerful solution to every enemy in the game even on insanity.  Reave + Cluster Grenades (you can get up to six throws in SP, with five grenades each) instantly clears large groups of enemies.  Brutes are a joke, as Warp followed by Throw decimates their health.  Bashees and Primes can be taken down in a few seconds, too.  The last battle before Marauder Shields was a cakewalk too because of Warp/Reave/Double Throw.  I've only beat Sentinel and Adept on Insanity so far, but none of the classes are niche classes because they all have so many powers that you can make any class fit for any role. 

I did play adept in Mass Effect 3 single player.

My description of the adept WAS NOT just crowd control.
Crowd control works on trooper class enemies. Which is a lot of enemies. Geth troopers, Cerberus troopers, Reaper husks and canibals.

I did mention the biotic explosions that feature heavily in Mass Effect. Also adepts can detonate tech bursts, incendiary explosions and cryo explosions (with the right bonus powers/squadmates)


The grenade was also mentioned.

Your comment ignored two thirds of what I listed.

I do agree with what you said about the adept. I just take issue of how you interpreted my statement.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 01 septembre 2012 - 06:20 .

[Abraham_uk]

Okay Illusive Dan, regarding my statement you are right about one thing.

I haven't played all classes.
I haven't played the soldier in single player.

I've played the other five, and completed the game with adept, engineer, vanguard and infiltrator.


Regarding the sentinel (that time I chose to do a playthrough that didn't import a Shepard).
Sentinel is a good mixture of everything.

Soldier is better at using guns. Soldiers don't need exclusivity of assault rifles for "status". They are the best at using all guns. Their prowess with weapons is their "status". Their adrenaline rush and access to incendiary, cryo and disruptor ammos form their "status".Soldier's have adrenaline rush. A unique power, that has time dilation, protection boost and bonus weapon damage.

Soldiers might need something extra to set themselves apart, but they are not redundant.



Sentinel has good firepower, and can bring tech and biotic powers too.

They have good defence and can chuck grenades like a soldier.
They have warp and throw like an adept.
They have overload and cryo blast like an engineer.

You already have tech armour. If you add a defensive bonus power, you merely make the sentinel harder to kill and slow down power cooldowns.

So your strategy would revolve around throw, lift grenades and guns. (Preferably borrowing an ammo power from a squadmate).

This works pretty well. But I've said this before. If you sacrifice power cooldowns for greater defence and a heavier load out, you miss out on warp, overload and cryo blast. This is half of the powers available to the sentinel.


The soldier can tank (not as well as a sentinel) with defence matrix/barrier/fortification, carry more heavy guns and still use adrenaline rush and concussive shot without waiting too long. Soldiers get the best weight capacity.

It's up to you. But for me, tech armour without a second damage reduction power enough. I can spam my other powers with less penality, and carry a light pistol or assault rifle. Maybe an SMG. The new SMG's for single player apparantly work well too.

[JaegerBane]

Abraham_uk wrote...
The new SMG's for single player apparantly work well too.

SMGs in general have really been boosted by the new mods - the recoil reduction mod and high-velocity barrel have really knocked down some of the sticking points that the SMG class had.

The new Punisher SMG is essentially a hand-held Revenant. It's easily powerful and efficient enough to function as a primary weapon.

[TheIllusiveDan]

I definitely am excited to play as the soldier on insanity, the incendiary explosion evolution looks really interesting.  I just moved into a new place so I can't get my playstation hooked up for a few days to test it out, so does anyone know what the formula is for the fire rate of the prothean particle rifle is?  Nothing I could find gave me any useful information about it other than "it speeds up as it goes."  I attempted to find it for myself but I'm nothing special at algebra so the closest I got was y=(x^2) - x + 5 with X being how many seconds it has been firing for and y being "shots" per second, with the firing rate being capped at 50 or so due to the size of the clip and possible system limitations.  The reason I am asking is because when I played with the sentinel I used the particle rifle and it seemed less effective than a revenant or another high firepower weapon because it by the time it got to a high rof the smaller enemies were at low health or dead.  I had to cover for it by using teamates with crowd control powers.  Does the fact that it's dps after a few seconds is insane with inferno explosion make up for the long charge up time and unique reload?

[JaegerBane]

TheIllusiveDan wrote...

I definitely am excited to play as the soldier on insanity, the incendiary explosion evolution looks really interesting.  I just moved into a new place so I can't get my playstation hooked up for a few days to test it out, so does anyone know what the formula is for the fire rate of the prothean particle rifle is?  Nothing I could find gave me any useful information about it other than "it speeds up as it goes."  I attempted to find it for myself but I'm nothing special at algebra so the closest I got was y=(x^2) - x + 5 with X being how many seconds it has been firing for and y being "shots" per second, with the firing rate being capped at 50 or so due to the size of the clip and possible system limitations.  The reason I am asking is because when I played with the sentinel I used the particle rifle and it seemed less effective than a revenant or another high firepower weapon because it by the time it got to a high rof the smaller enemies were at low health or dead.  I had to cover for it by using teamates with crowd control powers.  Does the fact that it's dps after a few seconds is insane with inferno explosion make up for the long charge up time and unique reload?

The Particle Rifle fires at a constant 800rpm - its fire rate doesn't change. When the high-power mode kicks in, a (IIRC) 4x damage modifier is added to the gun's base damage. This is why damage mods don't do much, as the mods are only affecting the base damage of the rifle, and that's not how this thing does the majority of its destruction.

The general thing with the Particle Rifle is to focus mainly on finding tougher targets, and use the low power period to find a target to hit so that they take the full blast by the time you've got them in the crosshairs - since it recharges its own ammo, you're not wasting anything by shooting before you've targeted them. In other words, in the time you'd spend with another assault rifle drawing a bead on your target before opening fire, you should be just pulling the trigger on the PR.

Its a very different gun to the Revenant, so it doesn't work very well when being used as a Revenant.

And make sure you fit it with a Piercing mod and extended clip.

For soldiers, you've also got the situation that the explosive ammo has a chance of detonation per shot, so the PR, with its very high rate of fire and unlimited ammo, can pull off far more explosions.

[TheIllusiveDan]

You recommend armor piercer over extended barrel? Is that for guardians? And thanks for clearing that up, I clearly didn't know it's fire rate is constant.

[swk3000]

TheIllusiveDan wrote...

You recommend armor piercer over extended barrel? Is that for guardians? And thanks for clearing that up, I clearly didn't know it's fire rate is constant.

The problem is the way bonuses are calculated. The gun does constant base damage, and when it hits overcharge mode, a 4x multiplier is added.  So if the base damage is 10 and you have the Assault Rifle Extended Barrel 5 equipped, you initially do 10*1.25=12.5 damage per hit. Once overcharge mode hits, you do 10*4.25=42.5 damage per hit. Your damage without the Extended Barrel is 10 per hit initially, and 40 damage per hit in overcharge mode. In other words, you're getting a damage increase, but it's so low that you can leave the Extended Barrel off with no issue.