Zardoc wrote...
So... the Argus is actually not a bad gun
Said no one, ever.
Modifié par Bathaius, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:30 .
whateverman7 wrote...
@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
Modifié par silencekills, 25 septembre 2012 - 09:39 .
Guest_death_for_sale_*
An D wrote...
If you compare all the assault rifles you'll see that some of the better ones are uncommon "silver" weapons. OMGWTFBBQ!!! So what? Just because there is something better doesn't make another thing bad.
The Argus is actually not a bad gun. I wouldn't object to changes like higher damage or faster refire time, but it's not so completely useless like many are saying.
P.S. 10 or so seconds can be important. It depends on the situation.
P.P.S. The weight and recoil are fine by me.
Modifié par EvanKester, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:25 .
Guest_death_for_sale_*
whateverman7 wrote...
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...
Modifié par DSxCallOfBooty-, 25 septembre 2012 - 11:48 .
Yeah that would make it an interesting alternative to the Saber, even if it was sort of weird.EvanKester wrote...
Personally, and a few others agree with me here, I'd just like its damage per burst to be high enough to be worth its weight and handling issues.
It's already very close to the damage of a Saber of the same level, on a per-burst basis--494.4 for an Argus X, versus 534.8 for the Saber X. I'm okay with that, as the difference between a rare and an ultra-rare.capn233 wrote...
Yeah that would make it an interesting alternative to the Saber, even if it was sort of weird.EvanKester wrote...
Personally, and a few others agree with me here, I'd just like its damage per burst to be high enough to be worth its weight and handling issues.
Modifié par rmccowen, 26 septembre 2012 - 12:20 .
Yes the fact that you don't land every shot of a burst on target as easily as the Saber means that the effective DPS gap is a bit larger right now. Upping damage per shot makes it an actual alternative to the Saber, even if it probably won't be quite as effective. Which is ok since it is Rare and not UR.rmccowen wrote...
It's already very close to the damage of a Saber of the same level, on a per-burst basis--494.4 for an Argus X, versus 534.8 for the Saber X. I'm okay with that, as the difference between a rare and an ultra-rare.
...I'm sort of rethinking that sentence, and I suppose it's hard to really object to a 5%-10% damage bump. Particularly given that unless your build is invested heavily in mitigating the recoil, it really is fairly tough to hold on target. Investing in recoil reduction would be disproportionately effective, but that's also not really something we've seen before in a weapon.
For me, the problem is really that refire delay. Recoil can be dealt with, and weight is more a specification of who should use it than anything else, but the refire delay means I'm twiddling my thumbs 2/3 of the time. The Saber has a similar delay (as does any single-shot gun with an RoF of 70-90 rounds per minute), but the Saber is a much better weapon overall--and also functions tactically more like a sniper than an AR. I'm rarely just trying to unload it as quickly as possible, unless it's against an Atlas or something.
So if I were in charge (or on PC, and able to experiment in SP) that's:
Damage increased to [141.1 - 176.4]
Rate of fire increased to 550
Minimum refire time decreased to 0.5
That would boost its per-magazine DPS to 639.7, which is well clear of the Vindicator and nicely competitive with other rare ARs.
Modifié par capn233, 26 septembre 2012 - 12:29 .
death_for_sale wrote...
Look, I am not trying to go out of my way to be mean to you. Let me show you what makes it so hard to take you seriously with a little role reversal.
If we were to be chatting about weapons and I said that the first version of the n7 Eagle was an excellent pistol and did not need any changes, then you gave me multiple logical reasons why it was terrible, how would you feel if I continued to say that in my experience and opinion it was fine? Not only that, but your reasons and logic were either overstated or purposely flawed.
EvanKester wrote...
Before anybody gets too confused here, the actual refire on the Argus is 0.65 seconds. More than double the refire time of the Vindicator, more than half a second, and that's DEFINITELY perceptible. And if you do have trouble perceiving that, you're not safe to drive.
The fact that the Argus is underpowered is a quantifiable, demonstrable fact, not a matter of opinion. What -is- a matter of opinion is what needs to change to make it worth while. Some people say tweak the weight. Others say make it fire faster. Personally, and a few others agree with me here, I'd just like its damage per burst to be high enough to be worth its weight and handling issues.
capn233 wrote...
Yes the fact that you don't land every shot of a burst on target as easily as the Saber means that the effective DPS gap is a bit larger right now. Upping damage per shot makes it an actual alternative to the Saber, even if it probably won't be quite as effective. Which is ok since it is Rare and not UR.rmccowen wrote...
It's already very close to the damage of a Saber of the same level, on a per-burst basis--494.4 for an Argus X, versus 534.8 for the Saber X. I'm okay with that, as the difference between a rare and an ultra-rare.
...I'm sort of rethinking that sentence, and I suppose it's hard to really object to a 5%-10% damage bump. Particularly given that unless your build is invested heavily in mitigating the recoil, it really is fairly tough to hold on target. Investing in recoil reduction would be disproportionately effective, but that's also not really something we've seen before in a weapon.
For me, the problem is really that refire delay. Recoil can be dealt with, and weight is more a specification of who should use it than anything else, but the refire delay means I'm twiddling my thumbs 2/3 of the time. The Saber has a similar delay (as does any single-shot gun with an RoF of 70-90 rounds per minute), but the Saber is a much better weapon overall--and also functions tactically more like a sniper than an AR. I'm rarely just trying to unload it as quickly as possible, unless it's against an Atlas or something.
So if I were in charge (or on PC, and able to experiment in SP) that's:
Damage increased to [141.1 - 176.4]
Rate of fire increased to 550
Minimum refire time decreased to 0.5
That would boost its per-magazine DPS to 639.7, which is well clear of the Vindicator and nicely competitive with other rare ARs.
Refire delay change would up the DPS and make it more akin to an upgraded/heavier/harder hitting Vindicator. In some ways that also makes sense. It would also allow faster transitions between targets.
Doing a bit of both may be ok, just need to make sure not to overly change them at the same time.
Modifié par K_Os2, 26 septembre 2012 - 01:36 .
He's saying that, at (say) 45 miles per hour, you travel about 25 feet in 0.4s. An error that large is the difference between driving on the street and driving into a building.whateverman7 wrote...
EvanKester wrote...
Before anybody gets too confused here, the actual refire on the Argus is 0.65 seconds. More than double the refire time of the Vindicator, more than half a second, and that's DEFINITELY perceptible. And if you do have trouble perceiving that, you're not safe to drive.
that's the **** i'm talking about...on another day, i'd throw barbs back and forth with yall, i just dont feel like doing that **** today....that's why i stopped
You're not illogical etc. because you disagree with me/us, but because your argument is deeply incoherent and ignores essentially all the available evidence in favor of a gut feeling.whateverman7 wrote...
it has nothing to do with being mean...i'm an adult, my feelings werent hurt with our convo...i just stopped cause yall wanted me to say it sucked, and i dont think it does...i stated my opinions, yall stated yalls....they differ, which is cool....but for some reason since i dont agree with yall, i'm now supposedly illogical, lack gamer skills, and dont know **** about the game....at that point it's no longer a convo about opinion about the game, and i just didnt feel like entertaining that convo today....death_for_sale wrote...
Look, I am not trying to go out of my way to be mean to you. Let me show you what makes it so hard to take you seriously with a little role reversal...
What he said. Thank you, rmccown.rmccowen wrote...
In reverse order:He's saying that, at (say) 45 miles per hour, you travel about 25 feet in 0.4s. An error that large is the difference between driving on the street and driving into a building.whateverman7 wrote...
EvanKester wrote...
Before anybody gets too confused here, the actual refire on the Argus is 0.65 seconds. More than double the refire time of the Vindicator, more than half a second, and that's DEFINITELY perceptible. And if you do have trouble perceiving that, you're not safe to drive.
that's the **** i'm talking about...on another day, i'd throw barbs back and forth with yall, i just dont feel like doing that **** today....that's why i stopped
That's not a barb; it's another way to underscore that whether or not the difference between 0.25s and 0.65s is large is entirely dependent on context.
Modifié par EvanKester, 26 septembre 2012 - 01:57 .
silencekills wrote...
1. I did. Unfortunately, it is not as important as when a gun stops doing anything for .4 seconds.
2. Your sure about that? They've NEVER used the gun? Ever? They don't have any personal experience? It's not possible that they used it in game, found out they don't really like it, then looked at it in spreadsheet form to get a better understanding of it? Do you want them to put their experience (which is obviously a negative one) into every post they make concerning it?
3. Yes, the actually damage from each shot will be the same. Over an extended amount of time however, you'd be doing MORE damage in the same amount of time compared to what it was before. That is what is known as damage per second or DPS for short. This buff would cause an INCREASE in damage output. In other words, the actually damage produced would increase.
Rate of Fire is pretty important. Maybe your suggesting that the Avenger would be as good as it is now if it had the RoF of the Krysae or the Paladin wouldn't be massively overpowered if it had the RoF of the GPS, but for some reason, that doesn't seem right.
rmccowen wrote...
In reverse order:
He's saying that, at (say) 45 miles per hour, you travel about 25 feet in 0.4s. An error that large is the difference between driving on the street and driving into a building.
That's not a barb; it's another way to underscore that whether or not the difference between 0.25s and 0.65s is large is entirely dependent on context.
You're not illogical etc. because you disagree with me/us, but because your argument is deeply incoherent and ignores essentially all the available evidence in favor of a gut feeling.
Which is fine if you're only trying to run a country or something, but this is a video game, and therefore serious bizness.
EvanKester wrote...
What he said. Thank you, rmccown.
The thing about human perception is you don't have to be able to accurately measure a difference in order to perceive it. We do it all the time. It's why people who don't actually know the rounds-per-minute of the Eviscerator and Wraith know it's low. The difference between the Vindicator and the Argus's fire rates is every bit as perceptible, even if it's difficult to accurately measure without tools. It's all a matter of context and proportion.
If I seem a bit prickly about it, do please take a look at your own debate tactics. "lol I doubt it" "spreadsheets" and all.
EDIT: On the note of how to rebalance the Argus, I'd need to check it again, but I wouldn't want the refire to be faster than the sound of the mechanism. Considering its recoil and accuracy issues, I'd also be OK with it dealing more damage in a burst than the Saber, since that'd actualy be a neat difference and appropriate to a heavy burst-fire gun. But.. there's tons of directions to go with it, and I like those numbers. ~700 dps yum.
One more time. Whether the difference between 0.25s and 0.65s is minimal depends on what happens in that interval. In ME3, it's a big difference--and it remains a big difference regardless of whether you acknowledge it.whateverman7 wrote...
we're not talking about drivng, we're talking about actions in a video game....4 secs is minimal...you barely notice it, if you notice it at all
Problems with the Argus:my argument is incoherent cause i've ignored evidence? what evidence?...i didnt ignore the .4 secs, which makes the argus look bad...i didnt ignore it has more damage per shot than the vindicator, which makes the argus look better...i didnt ignore the weight, the reload time, etc....i've mentioned all those things in my critique of the gun...just look back at my posts....gut feeling and evidence taken into account, i just dont think it's a bad gun...
rmccowen wrote...
One more time. Whether the difference between 0.25s and 0.65s is minimal depends on what happens in that interval. In ME3, it's a big difference--and it remains a big difference regardless of whether you acknowledge it.
Problems with the Argus:
1) It has half the fire rate of the Vindicator.
2) It has twice the weight of the Vindicator.
3) It has much higher recoil than the Vindicator.
4) It's much less accurate than the Vindicator.
5) Under sustained fire, it's about as efficient as the Vindicator (has approximately equivalent DPS).
You've claim you've taken taken all that into account, and that your conclusion is that the Argus is fine. That's what I mean when I say ignoring evidence: all of that nasty stuff is sitting on one side of the scale. The two rational choices are to argue with those points, or provide something that sits on the other side and balances them all out.
But you're not doing either of those things. Instead, you're choosing a bizarre third option: happily acknowledge those facts, but continue to ignore their implications.
Modifié par whateverman7, 26 septembre 2012 - 08:08 .
whateverman7 wrote...
rmccowen wrote...
One more time. Whether the difference between 0.25s and 0.65s is minimal depends on what happens in that interval. In ME3, it's a big difference--and it remains a big difference regardless of whether you acknowledge it.
Problems with the Argus:
1) It has half the fire rate of the Vindicator.
2) It has twice the weight of the Vindicator.
3) It has much higher recoil than the Vindicator.
4) It's much less accurate than the Vindicator.
5) Under sustained fire, it's about as efficient as the Vindicator (has approximately equivalent DPS).
You've claim you've taken taken all that into account, and that your conclusion is that the Argus is fine. That's what I mean when I say ignoring evidence: all of that nasty stuff is sitting on one side of the scale. The two rational choices are to argue with those points, or provide something that sits on the other side and balances them all out.
But you're not doing either of those things. Instead, you're choosing a bizarre third option: happily acknowledge those facts, but continue to ignore their implications.
i'm playing with the gun right now just to make sure i got this right, so i'm not ignoring anything as you say
that .4 secs isnt a big difference...can you tell the gun shoots slower? yea...does it really matter? no...cause it's not that much slower...not only that, it does more damage than the vindicator, so even though it shoots slower, it puts things down faster
if you go back and look at my initial posts about the argus, i acknowledged and discussed all the problems you listed...since it seems you wont do that, i'll do it again:
1. the fire rate is not that big of a difference...besides, the argus does more damage per shot, so the difference is made up
2. yes, the weight is a huge advantage for the vindicator
3. no it doesnt...put a stabilizer mod (the gun one, not consumable) on it, and it shoots just like the vindicator when looking down the sights
4. no it's not...stability mod plus argus equals headshot after headshot, just like the vindicator
5. so when it's an advantage for the argus, it's downplayed? gotcha...the argus does more dps than the vindicator and it's more efficient under sustained fire....
i've taken into account everything you and others have said, but since i dont come to the same conclusion as yall, yall take it as i'm talking out my ass, when that's not the case...i'll say what i've been saying this whole thread: is the argus the best AR? no...is it as bad as yall wanna make it seem? no...
yall have stated yall opinions, i've stated mine...we differ, which is cool...the thing is yall are trying to get me to change my mind, and that's not gonna happen...i've used the gun...did damn well with it, and it didnt suck....if i used it and thought it sucked, i'd say so...
Modifié par warhulk616, 10 octobre 2012 - 12:53 .
Retour en haut