222 réponses à ce sujet

[whateverman7]

rmccowen wrote...

1. No, but it would be nice if you thought for even a moment about all the other things you could be doing in 0.4s. I'll put it another way: in the time it takes to fire a single burst from the Argus, you can fire ten rounds from a Revenant, with the same accuracy as the Argus and less recoil. In the time it takes to fire two Argus bursts, you can fire and reload a Claymore.

2. The Argus doesn't put out enough damage, not because its rounds are too weak but because the firing delay is atrocious--and, stepping away from math for a moment, it feels atrocious. I can tell that the Vindicator fires much faster. I can tell that my Argus II feels weaker than a Phaeston. For lulz, I equipped my GI with the Argus and Eagle and jumped into a Bronze solo--and the Eagle was noticeably more reliable.

3. When the Argus is firing, it's kind of nice, in a put-it-on-a-Turian-with-stability-mods sort of way. But currently the ratio of time spent firing to time spent waiting around to fire again is way too long for the available damage output. I don't think it would take much to make it a good gun--nudge the fire rate up to make shots cluster more closely in time, and cut the minimum refire time to, say, 0.4 or 0.5s.

4. First, and I'm trying to be nice here, but you need to learn to punctuate sentences correctly. Language is useful when it allows people to communicate, and part of the signaling function of language is embedded in structure. An occasional ellipsis helps indicate tone; ending every clause and every sentence with an ellipsis makes it impossible to distinguish between the two, and not incidentally makes you sound like you have advanced dementia.

Second, numbers are valuable in context. Here, the context is often unstated because it's held in common--but as Cyonan points out, theorycraft isn't a substitute for experience. If you think I'm omitting something important from the experience of using the Argus, feel free to point that out, but upthread you accused someone of quoting a "spreadsheet" as if that alone disproved their point. It doesn't.

5. Yes: all the problems with the Argus, except the ones that make the gun underpowered, can be fixed with mods. That's why it's underpowered.

No.

If a rare weapon is noticeably less effective than multiple uncommon guns in the same class, it probably needs some help. If it consistently outperforms everything in its own group, particularly against bosses, it's overpowered. This is not a subtle or imaginary distinction.

1. so now .4 secs is such a long time? lol...do yall realize how ridiculous that sounds?....it's .4 secs

2. if you say so....since that's your experience i can only take your word for it...my experience wasnt like that, that's why i disagree

3. i didnt use it on a turian, i used it on a human engineer, and it was nice that way...you're killing me with the .4 secs man lol

4. First - Wow, another post structure cop. Only on the bsn have i ever experienced  people paying more attention to how you structure your posts, rather than what you actually said. Thanks for being nice, but it's not needed. My posts arent structered correctly cause i didnt care about that. My posts are easily to follow, coherent, and concise; which i care about. You dont like how they are structured, you deal with it, or dont reply.  By the way, was this response structured enough for you?

Second - No, i say they quote spreadsheets when they quote spreadsheets and that's the basis for their stance...to say the gun does X amount of damage, so it means it sucks is quoting spreadsheets over experience....and no, i cant tell you what you experienced with the gun, cause that was your experience....i havent been trying to get yall to change yall minds, i'm just telling yall what i think from my experience with the gun...our experiences differed, and we're having a discussion about that....at least, that's what i've been doing this whole time...

5. again, problematic and underpowered are 2 different things....the issues people have with the argus have nothing to do with power....the issues/problems are the weight, the reload, and the rate of fire...that has nothing to do with the power output of the gun...

actually it is....just look at the history of guns on the bsn....when a gun comes out, the bsn picks 1 extreme or the other...it's either extremely bad or overpowered...also, a lot on the bsn are a bunch of sheep...whatever the overall feel is, they go with...prime examples: the pirahna and acyolete(sp)....the overall feeling on the bsn was those guns sucked when they first came out....but after certain posters said the opposite, the bsn followed suite, and they loved them....

[Grunt_Platform]

I don't have much history here so I'm a bit harder to vet, but maybe you should check out Cyonan and rmccowen's actual track records. They're rather smart and reasonable people, not prone to taking the radical extreme stances on a whim.

The damage for the Argus is actually really low for its weight. That's not opinion, and that's not spreadsheet BS. Spreadsheets tend to make guns look better than they are, actually!

0.4 seconds is a fairly small change for any power you're not spamming. But in gun firing time that's huge. Most guns fire several times per second. The Argus gets only one burst out in a second. That's enough to make it significantly worse against enemies like geth hunters.

Modifié par EvanKester, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:09 .

[An D]

Fire this gun from cover. Seriously. When you use a weapon with odd characteristics you should adapt to the situation, not just whine that it's not perfect.

Could the Argus be better? Yes, of course. Does it perform horribly? Not at all.

[zRz Tyr]

An D wrote...

Fire this gun from cover. Seriously. When you use a weapon with odd characteristics you should adapt to the situation, not just whine that it's not perfect.

Could the Argus be better? Yes, of course. Does it perform horribly? Not at all.

And after all, it is a close range rifle. You are not supposed to snipe with it. Bioware should have done it automatic, it would have fitted its close range rifle role more.

Modifié par zRz Tyr, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:15 .

[capn233]

Threads like this give me a headache.

Argus is just not good. If it had less of a refire delay maybe it could be a weird Rare burst alternative to the Saber. It just doesn't make sense to use it in the current state except just for "fun."

Modifié par capn233, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:22 .

[Zardoc]

So... the Argus is actually not a bad gun

Said no one, ever.

Modifié par Zardoc, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:24 .

[An D]

death_for_sale wrote...

An D wrote...

Fire this gun from cover. Seriously. When you use a weapon with odd characteristics you should adapt to the situation, not just whine that it's not perfect.

Could the Argus be better? Yes, of course. Does it perform horribly? Not at all.

Yes, for a Gold Rare, it does perform horribly.

Perform horribly compared to what, other rare ARs? Revenant is a full-auto weapon (that also has recoil and accuracy drawbacks). Geth Plasma Rifle is a bullet hose. Striker and Falcon fire explosives. It has no direct comparisons.

The people that are saying it's not so bad are the people that have put time into learning this weapon, getting used to it's peculiarities. It's not bad. It's just not so foxtrot awesome.



EDIT: I'm still waiting for the awesome setup the OP hinted at.

Modifié par An D, 25 septembre 2012 - 08:38 .

[silencekills]

whateverman7 wrote...

1. so now .4 secs is such a long time? lol...do yall realize how ridiculous that sounds?....it's .4 secs

   i didnt use it on a turian, i used it on a human engineer, and it was nice that way...you're killing me with the .4 secs man lol


2. Second - No, i say they quote spreadsheets when they quote spreadsheets and that's the basis for their stance...to say the gun does X amount of damage, so it means it sucks is quoting spreadsheets over experience....and no, i cant tell you what you experienced with the gun, cause that was your experience....i havent been trying to get yall to change yall minds, i'm just telling yall what i think from my experience with the gun...our experiences differed, and we're having a discussion about that....at least, that's what i've been doing this whole time...

3. again, problematic and underpowered are 2 different things....the issues people have with the argus have nothing to do with power....the issues/problems are the weight, the reload, and the rate of fire...that has nothing to do with the power output of the gun...

1. For the first time in my life, I actually facepalmed. I always thought it was forcefully smacking your face with your hand and sticking it there. Now I know it is (or at least can be) simply putting your face to your hand. I learned something new today.

2. It might be a possibility that they use spreadsheets (hard data, indifferent to personal experience) to back up their dislike of the gun gained from personal experience.

3. "the weight, the reload, and the rate of fire...that has nothing to do with the power output of the gun" 

     What?

Pssssssssssst. Increasing the RoF/decreasing the reload time would increase it's damage output.

[Blarg]

BlackbirdSR-71C wrote...

blaaaaaaaaaarg wrote...

 I'm actually going to agree with the OP. With a stability mod, barage upgrade, and Turian Soldier it has no recoil at all. Add to that the TSol's Marksman ability and start tearing through mobs. Not so great against bosses in my opinion, but it's still pretty high up on my assault rifle list.
Preparing my flame shield now. 

1. With the Turian Soldiers class talent, a stability mod and the barrage gear mod you achieve between -135 and -155% recoil. You're wasting a gear slot/skill points!

2. It may be "good" in your eyes on a Turian Soldier, but it's still quite worse than other weapons (Harrier, Mattock, Sabre) on the same build.

Fair enough. Didn't care to do the math, so thanks for telling me I can take one off.

I prefer it to the Harrier because of the ammo problem, the Mattock because it just doesn't feel like it has enough punch on gold, and the Sabre because it has more ammo. Don't get me wrong, I still love all three of those other guns, I just find that my particular TSol build works better with the Argus, while the other three work better with my other characters. For instance, I'd never use the Argus on my Sabre-wielding SI, Harrier-wielding Demolisher, or Mattock-wielding Paladin. It's a matter of taste and play style, and just what works for you.

[whateverman7]

On my phone, and quoting sucks, so here goes:

@ evan: I'm not attacking them as posters, I just disagree with their opinion...which is cool, we just having a discussion.....

weight does not equal nor indicate power output...the gunhas decent damage output, it's just heavy

Y'all are really killing me with the .4 secs....y'all think it's a long time, I don't...again, we just disagree

[whateverman7]

@ death:

So now I'm a troll cause I disagree based on my experiences?....lol whatever you say...yea, I suck at the game, I don't know **** about the game...my experiences don't matter, whatever y'all say is so..I got y'all now

[Grunt_Platform]

whateverman7 wrote...

@ evan: I'm not attacking them as posters, I just disagree with their opinion...which is cool, we just having a discussion.....

Just saying. You keep bringing up BSN's habit of wigging out on one side or the other, but these guys aren't really part of the normal hubbub is all.

Glad you're civil about this though!

[capn233]

I don't know what you are on about.

The whole premise of the weight system is that the guns should be more effective the heavier they are. So you balance weapon performance with power use.

If a gun does not put out all that much damage per the weight, it is not useful. Argus fits the bill to a T since it weighs as much as the Saber while having less DPS than it or even the Vindicator, which is less "rare" and has less weight.

And while paper DPS isn't the end all and be all, the Argus doesn't have any other characteristics to endear it to us anyway.  Accuracy isn't great, and recoil is not good either.

Modifié par capn233, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:12 .

[rmccowen]

whateverman7 wrote...

1. so now .4 secs is such a long time? lol...do yall realize how ridiculous that sounds?....it's .4 secs

Yes. It's a long time because of the number of other things you could accomplish in this game in that amount of time. Again--the difference between the time it takes to fire and "cool down" from a single Argus burst is almost exactly twice the amount of time it takes to fire and cool down from a single Vindicator burst.

Which, incidentally, you could verify easily without reference to a spreadsheet if you cared to do so. It takes four "mississippis" to unload a full Vindicator magazine, and seven to unload a full Argus--and the Argus has a smaller mag. The Argus fires at about half the Vindicator's rate. That's a problem because it does only about twice as much damage as the Vindicator (meaning burst DPS is about the same), and the Argus weighs more, is less accurate, and is harder to hold on-target.

You don't want the capsule description of the gun to be "it's a lot like a Vindicator, but heavier".

Again, I'm deriving that from both theorycrafting and testing in-game. If you want to argue with me, you'll need to hit both of those points. Claiming that experience is subjective won't do it, because I have reasonably objective data taken from the game's files to support my experience. Claiming that theorycrafting ignores experience also won't do it, because I'm not limiting my argument to theory.

(Seriously: go shoot some stuff with the Vindicator. Then do the same with the Argus. The Argus is just too slow, and as a result the damage it can put out over time is too low. It's particularly low compared with the fact that you could carry a Vindicator in each hand and have no more weight than an Argus. I could stop there, but it's even worse because the Vindicator has much better handling--it's easier to keep on target, and the rounds more obviously go where you put them.)

actually it is....just look at the history of guns on the bsn....when a gun comes out, the bsn picks 1 extreme or the other...it's either extremely bad or overpowered...also, a lot on the bsn are a bunch of sheep...whatever the overall feel is, they go with...prime examples: the pirahna and acyolete(sp)....the overall feeling on the bsn was those guns sucked when they first came out....but after certain posters said the opposite, the bsn followed suite, and they loved them....

Speaking of the Acolyte, you know what else you can do with that 1.01s it takes to fire and cool down from an Argus burst? You can charge the Acolyte, which does more damage against armor (DR is applied once instead of three times) and shields (of course), as well as virtually identical damage against health.

On the whole, the Argus is not good and needs help.

***

@EvanKester: Thanks. A nice bright note in an otherwise frustrating day.

Modifié par rmccowen, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:17 .

[whateverman7]

@silence:

1. Facepalm again and see how long it takes...I bet it's longer than .4 secs

2. That's not what they are doing though...they are using the spreadsheet info to discredit the gun, not back upexperience from use...hence the reason we keep mentioning .4 secs

3. It doesn't..the actually damage from each shot fired will remain the same....if a gun has low damage, it doesn't matter how fast it shoots/reloads...the same goes for high damage...changing those things would just change those things, not the actually damage being produced

[capn233]

whateverman7 wrote...


2. That's not what they are doing though...they are using the spreadsheet info to discredit the gun, not back upexperience from use...hence the reason we keep mentioning .4 secs

Basically everyone talking has used this gun I would wager.  It is not as effective as the Saber or the Vindicator.  It weighs the same as the Saber, and much more than the Vindicator.  This is all easy to recognize in game.

3. It doesn't..the actually damage from each shot fired will remain the same....if a gun has low damage, it doesn't matter how fast it shoots/reloads...the same goes for high damage...changing those things would just change those things, not the actually damage being produced

A single burst from the Argus isn't enough damage to justify some sort of single shot vs sustained damage argument.  That's not even considering that it is more difficult to land a whole burst on target compared with a single shot from the Saber.

Modifié par capn233, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:22 .

[WaffleCrab]

AtR Sheepdog wrote...

Assault Rifle Magazine Upgrade V, Assault Rifle Extended Barrel V, Assault Rifle Rail Amp III, Barrage Upgrade V, Stabilization Module III, Warp Rounds IV.

I'm assuming you're recommending Vulnerability VI V. It's too inconsistent if you don't have QWERTY on your team. Barrage Upgrade V will trade you occasional headshot damage for not only significant weapon stability, but extra reserve ammo. The magazine by default isn't actually that big. Without the Magazine Upgrade V equipped, you're losing too much damage potential with reload time. Extended Barrel is a given. Normally I'd say Armor Piercing rounds, but again, the gun is too unwieldy to attempt precise, damaging shots worth your ammo through cover. Warp Rounds IV will give the Argus X enough kick to tear through a Guardian's shield no worries so long as you aim at the eye slot, and does significant armor damage.

If you do all of this, the Argus X is a fairly good gun. But... then what else can you do? That's dedicating every equipment slot to buffing the Argus, also potentially dedicating to playing one specific character (Human Soldier with Adrenaline Rush, Turian, Destroyer, etc.). FFS, just equip your Carnifex and pop heads without the waste of equipment slots or consumables.

I actually prefer the stabilization mod, barrel and barrage with this gun. Though i still prefer the vindicator with AP and barrel on it with barrage, more accurate, easier to do steady damage, weighs less, and you can actually move when your firing with it.

Modifié par WaffleCrab, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:26 .

[rmccowen]

whateverman7 wrote...

3. It doesn't..the actually damage from each shot fired will remain the same....if a gun has low damage, it doesn't matter how fast it shoots/reloads...the same goes for high damage...changing those things would just change those things, not the actually damage being produced

Okay, here goes.

A low-damage weapon with a very high rate of fire will have fairly high sustained damage output. That is, it does lots of damage in a particular time interval, even if it doesn't do it in big chunks. The Particle Rifle is a good example.

A high-damage weapon with a very low rate of fire does damage in big chunks that are more spaced out over time. The slowness and the damage balance each other out, meaning that even though the weapon fires pretty slowly, the amount of damage it puts out in a particular length of time can be fairly high. A good weapon to think about here is the Saber.

DPS is a measure of efficiency. When people talk about high-damage weapons, they're usually (although not always) talking about this kind of efficiency. It's less meaningful for some characters than others, but it's a handy way to quickly compare weapons.

A weapon with moderate damage and a low effective rate of fire--like the Argus--is not an efficient damage dealer. It doesn't do a lot of damage, and it does damage slowly, so its DPS is low. Increasing the effective rate of fire (that is, cramming more bursts into the same length of time) would make the Argus more efficient, raising its DPS and making it a more generally effective weapon to use across all classes.

Modifié par rmccowen, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:26 .

[whateverman7]

Can't have a difference of opinion without being called names, intelligence questioned, and other things on the bsn I see...aight, y'all win...what I experienced with it didn't happen, and since y'all say it sucks, it sucks...