191 réponses à ce sujet

[SimulatedSnowman]

EvanKester wrote...

SimulatedSnowman wrote...

I agree with your conclusion OP. However, I don't think that is what BW wants, especially given the last nerfs to the Piranha and Carnifex, with the explanation being to "bring them in line" with the other guns. This suggests that they do not want weapons that outshine other weapons from level 1, but rather most weapons should be similar enough in characteristics that it could pretty much be a toss up between them. It's upsetting.

Hrm, I disagree.

See, the problem with the Carnifex is it was overshadowing many other rares and uncommons (heck, early on it was invalidating every multi-shot sniper rifle!), even those that had been buffed to be roughly its equal. Heck, it was even overshadowing its Ultra-Rare cousin the Paladin! Most dedicated players picked up on the Paladin's usefulness, but... you can still find people saying the Carnifex is the better weapon. Not sure the nerf hit the mark exactly though.

And the Piranha was having its stint as the single most popular weapon in the game, and with good reason. For those weeks before its damage buff was undone it was beyond a doubt the most power for weight in the game, and even now it still has the second best theoretical damage per second (Reegar beats it.. but the Reegar's weird).

In both cases, BioWare showed much more restraint than when they nerfed the Krysae and Falcon. They dialed the guns back a bit, but they're both still among the best in the game. This actually falls roughly inline with my theory—No gun should be completely overshadowing another (overshadowing a common may be exempt, but... see below)

Eckswhyzed wrote...
Commons - easy to use (e.g. Avenger's low weight and recoil) vs. UR - hard to master e.g. PPR's ramp-up time, Scorpion's odd mechanics, Saber's recoil and reticule bloom, and so on.

THIS. So very this.

So what are you disagreeing with? You're saying you disagree, and then validating what I'm saying entirely. The nerf to both guns was to specifically make it a harder decision to choose a Carnifex/Piranha over anything else.

I don't think that there were tons of people saying that the Carnifex was so massively overpowered that you'd need to be stupid in order to not take one. The only other choices are niche specific, in that if you want a gun that just does damage and doesn't rely on a charge up or anything, then the Carnifex is the best choice. The only other non-UR choice is the Phalanx, which is plenty good until you unlock a Carnifex, and that is exactly the way things should be. Rares should outclass Uncommons from the start. 

With the Piranha, this problem could have been solved really easily. Make it an Ultra-rare from the start and leave it the way it was. Take the Typhoon the way it is now, and make it a Rare. The effectiveness of both the Piranha and Typhoon (pre-nerfs) was perfectly suited for the Ultra-rare category. 

[neteng101]

Deleted - I thought this didn't post so I typed it up all over again.

Modifié par neteng101, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:46 .

[neteng101]

EvanKester wrote...

I'd make a poll if I had a simple yes/no question to ask.  But it's the discussion I really want.

Translation - you are afraid of the yes/no answer then.  Because you did ask a simple question...

Should Ultra Rares be the best guns in the game?

It can be answered by a simple yes/no.  The fact you'd rather "discuss" shows your inherent intent to skew the results.

Agree to disagree time here, I think. I like the reduced clip size since, frankly, it makes the Paladin more distinct from the Carnifex. Yes they nerfed its clip size, but at the same time they upped its damage.

The damage increase is not significant enough to merit the reduced clip size.  Its not like the Paladin does 2x more damage with 50% less in the clip.

If they don't want to give it a 4-clip or more damage, then give it inherent penetration instead, which would make it different from the Carnifex even more.  It would also differentiate it better from the Talon.

Modifié par neteng101, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:47 .

[Grunt_Platform]

neteng101 wrote...

Translation - you're afraid of the answer you might get because you did ask a simple yes/no question...
Should Ultra Rares be the best guns in the game?But as for the Paladin, ok, I see your point, but the increased damage is not significant enough to merit the decreased clip size.  The problem is that at lower levels, the Paladin really doesn't do much more damage than a Carnifex...  its not like it does 2x the damage with 1/2 the clip size.  The math doesn't add up here...  the Paladin provides a fraction of increased damage in exchange for 50% capacity?

I could see using the Paladin more once I get it to X...  then just stick on the extended clip if we want to, and the extended barrel would be missed less.

If you don't want to give it a 4-clip, give it 0.25 penetration instead if you don't want to do a direct damage increase.  It changes the need for the AP mod.

Actually, the original title of this thread was "Rarity and Effectiveness" because that's the discussion I wanted. I picked a more provocative title when I realized no one would really care about something so dry. But you can just call me a coward if that makes you feel better.

ANYWAY. I thought about it more and came up with some questions that I think actually have the granularity I want:

[EDIT, actually, here's a thought. How do these poll options sound?
How should weapon rarity affect balance?
* All weapons should be gold-viable.
* All weapons should be gold-viable, but rarer weapons should be more specialized. (High skill requirements for high power rewards) 
* Rarer weapons should be stronger than more common weapons [Black > Gold > SIlver > Blue]
* Commons and Uncommons are just stepping stones, but Rares and Ultra Rares should be balanced.] 

You kind of replied while I was writing that.

I chose "gold-viable" over "balanced" because.. well. To some people "balanced" is synonymous with "nerfed into the ground," and I could see them voting for anything else just to avoid avoid the dreaded nerf-monster. Kept it on option four since I don't think there should be any ambiguity there.

Modifié par EvanKester, 28 septembre 2012 - 02:55 .

[neteng101]

Polls don't work too well when you make people choose around muddier options... but I do get what you're trying to ask. I'd give the poll a shot anyways, curious to see the results although I suspect you would get fewer responses than an outright simple yes/no poll would yield.

[Constant Motion]

neteng101 wrote...

Constant Motion wrote...

And yet other players are perfectly happy with a 3-clip Paladin and will gladly pay that price for increased power-per-shot.

Sounds pretty well-balanced from where I'm standing!

All opinions unless you can back that up with numbers.  But the numbers suggests the Carnifex (not Paladin) has been too dominant, per Bioware.  If they want more Paladin usage, then the 4-clip has been enough times by different people on BSN to merit consideration.

Oh, yes! I know it's an opinion. Absolutely, take it as nothing more - "other players" was French for "me." Didn't make it clear, probably a tone thing!

But I'm with EvanKester on this one. Paladin is less dependable than the Carnifex - if you miss a shot, it matters - but much more useful in bursts. Rather than being a straight upgrade, it offers extra power for those who need it, but it's not as broadly usable nor consistently reliable as a Carnifex.

I quite like the Paladin's damage, loved it as a four-shot gun and loved it as a three-shotter, and since the weight-reduction I've started using it as a side-arm for my Fury. It's a far more occasional weapon, and I've had to slap Ultra-Light Materials onto it, but as I'm not using it constantly, the clip capacity is a very small price to pay. Not as good all-round as the Carnifex, but much, much better in certain scenarios.

[Grunt_Platform]

SimulatedSnowman wrote...
So what are you disagreeing with? You're saying you disagree, and then validating what I'm saying entirely. The nerf to both guns was to specifically make it a harder decision to choose a Carnifex/Piranha over anything else. 

I disagree because my feeling was that while the Carnifex nerf is debatable (people had stopped writing so many love letters to that gun a while back near as I could tell), both guns were overused, and it was detrimental to the balance of all weapons.

I don't think they needed to be nerfed for overshadowing URs, I feel the nerfs were OK because they didn't break the guns, and they made it a bit easier for BioWare to properly balance light-weight caster weapons. The Carnifex no longer completely obsoletes the Viper, for example.

...Avenger and GPR still need buffs though.

[jandrewcepticon]

I wouldn't really say best, but they should certainly not suck. Also, give them a little advantage over their rare cousins.

[neteng101]

Constant Motion wrote...

I quite like the Paladin's damage, loved it as a four-shot gun and loved it as a three-shotter, and since the weight-reduction I've started using it as a side-arm for my Fury.

I just slap on the Talon - the Fury is always "in your face" with the enemies to prime/boom them anyways.

What do you think about giving some inherent penetration to the Paladin instead of the 4-clip?  It would give it a bit more uniqueness.

[Grunt_Platform]

neteng101 wrote...

Polls don't work too well when you make people choose around muddier options... but I do get what you're trying to ask. I'd give the poll a shot anyways, curious to see the results although I suspect you would get fewer responses than an outright simple yes/no poll would yield.

Yeah, that's the problem I was having. I don't think a simple yes/no on the Ultra-Rares power level thing is very useful though. Maybe I should construct a series of polls around easier to answer questions. Hmm.

After all, I like the notion that the Black Widow and the Javelin are the "best" sniper rifles, but weigh a ton, and have some steep skill requirements. I'm not such a big fan of the way the Harrier is basically the best gun ever, provided you're not camping... but I love the Harrier too much to ever suggest anybody even consider nerfing it .

Ahem. Back on point. The "[Yes/No], they should be best in their special niche" answer has a lot of nuances to it, and I don't like losing them. I wanna help formulate a better more meaningful question.

neteng101 wrote...
What do you think about giving some inherent penetration to the Paladin instead of the 4-clip?  It would give it a bit more uniqueness.

I for one actually really like that idea. I don't know if the Paladin needs that, but I've always felt like more of the really high-power guns need at least 0.25m penetration. ... But then again, give more of them that, and Guardians become even more of a joke than they already are. Hmm.

Modifié par EvanKester, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:14 .

[Straw Nihilist]

No, the ****** launcher 5000 should be :|

[Constant Motion]

neteng101 wrote...

Constant Motion wrote...

I quite like the Paladin's damage, loved it as a four-shot gun and loved it as a three-shotter, and since the weight-reduction I've started using it as a side-arm for my Fury.

I just slap on the Talon - the Fury is always "in your face" with the enemies to prime/boom them anyways.

What do you think about giving some inherent penetration to the Paladin instead of the 4-clip?  It would give it a bit more uniqueness.

Sounds good to me! I'd love to see more innate strengths-and-weaknesses within the guns. On which note, do we have anything much that distinguishes between Shields and Barriers, yet?

I'd love to give the Talon a go - but it's one of two guns I don't have! That and the Cerberus Harrier. Raptor was the third until two days ago, weirdly. I'd maxed all the original golds before it turned up.

Modifié par Constant Motion, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:10 .

[MajorStupidity]

All weapons should be viable on higher difficulties; however, I can see why people want the UR's to be better since they take so damn long to unlock.

Bioware should never have implemented the tier system for unlocks for system like this. The need to make sales on micro-transactions has compromised the need to keep all the weapons usable in different situations. I love the MP to death but the tier system and RNG are extremely disappointing coming from BW

Micro-transactions if implemented correctly can work extremely well, but a MT system mixed with an RNG system is just ridiculous.

[neteng101]

EvanKester wrote...

I for one actually really like that idea. I don't know if the Paladin needs that, but I've always felt like more of the really high-power guns need at least 0.25m penetration. ... But then again, give more of them that, and Guardians become even more of a joke than they already are. Hmm.

The only 2 guns I could really see that could use inherent penetration are both early URs that seem to have fallen behind now given difficulty additions, enemy changes/buffs, etc.  Just allows for more weapon mod choices on them really without having to rely on AP ammo all the time for those...  its a subtle way to buff the Paladin and Saber with the 0.25 penetration.

[Grunt_Platform]

neteng101 wrote...

EvanKester wrote...

I for one actually really like that idea. I don't know if the Paladin needs that, but I've always felt like more of the really high-power guns need at least 0.25m penetration. ... But then again, give more of them that, and Guardians become even more of a joke than they already are. Hmm.

The only 2 guns I could really see that could use inherent penetration are both early URs that seem to have fallen behind now given difficulty additions, enemy changes/buffs, etc.  Just allows for more weapon mod choices on them really without having to rely on AP ammo all the time for those...  its a subtle way to buff the Paladin and Saber with the 0.25 penetration.

I've thought the same for the Saber. Something that heavy, and that loud should really punch through things.

I could also really get behind giving the Eviscerator and the Wraith both 0.25 penetration. Might go furhter for them than simple rate of fire or damage buffs, even.

Modifié par EvanKester, 28 septembre 2012 - 03:37 .

[Mendelevosa]

Similar to what another poster said. Statistically, ultra rares should be better than the other weapons, but at the same time they should be less versatile and harder to use. Basically, the higher the rarity, the higher the difficulty of use and the lower the versatility.

For example, commons should be inferior to higher-tier weapons, but easier to use. (i.e. Avenger is low powered, but very easy to use.)

Uncommons should be stronger than commons with more versatility, but weaker than rares and URs. (i.e. Phaeston with its all-around stats and Raptor with its high spare ammo and good RoF and power)

Rares should be stronger than commons and uncommons, but with specialized mechanics for more specific purposes, making them harder to use and less versatile. (i.e. Acolyte with its damage bonus to shields and barriers, but requirement of charging before firing and the Revenant with its high damage and high RoF, but its low accuracy and high recoil)

Ultra rares should be the top of the line weapons, being statistically stronger than the other weapons, but should be the hardest to use and the least versatile. Basically, ultra rares should fill a specific purpose/optimization/role that they do better than every other gun. (i.e. Scorpion for it's high damage and crowd control abilities, but it's awkward mechanics and difficulty of effective use, the Particle Rifle for its high damage and large beam duration, but its requirement to charge the beam for a few seconds before it's true potential is unleashed, and the Javelin for its insane damage, ability to see through walls and its high innate penetration ability, but its heavy weight and low spare clip capacity.

With this tier setup, weapons of higher rarity are better than lower tier weapons in terms of stats, but are harder to use and less versatile, preventing them from becoming the "go-to" weapons. If all weapons followed this structure, then true balance could be achieved.

Modifié par Mendelevosa, 29 septembre 2012 - 11:18 .

[ClockworkSpectre]

Considering the difficulty in acquiring URs, yes, without question they should be the best weapons in the game. Unfortunately some of them are upgrades of other weapons, and instead of just being a better version of said weapon, they add some stupid handicap to them. This may be a hybrid Shooter and RPG but balancing all weapons to be roughly similar or only slightly better ignores the idea of RPG elements when it comes to weapons.

[Malevolent Fish]

Personally, I just think they should be unique; the Scorpion and Particle Rifle are the best examples of this.

Stuff like the Paladin and the Wraith (slightly different versions of existing weapons) just seems too...standard, and not really deserving of such rarity in my eyes.

[JustinSonic]

 There are PLENTY of Rare guns that are great. The balance is how you use them on certain classes!

The Geth Plasma Shotgun is decent, along with the Reegar, the Acolyte, the Widow, the Falcon (I'm actually starting to apprecaite it more), the Claymore, and even kinda the Piranha.

The Ultra Rares are just really nice weapons...some only work well on certain classes...a great example being the Typhoon. I only find that weapon (as of now) useful on the N7 Destroyer. Otherwise, nadda.

[oO Stryfe Oo]

Considering I've been playing this game, and this game only, for 6 months straight, yes. These guns are extremely difficult to find. While I agree that Rare and Ultra-Rare guns should be viable on Gold/Platinum, I've always thought that the gun rarity matched the difficulty they were designed to be used on. Common for Bronze, Uncommon for Silver, Rare for Gold, and now Ultra Rare for Platinum. Every weapon is Gold-viable in the right hands, but a Revenant will serve you a lot better on Gold than an Avenger would.

After reading this thread, I somewhat like the idea of the UR filling a niche, but that doesn't make up for how long it takes to get them. I'm not saying make them the ultimate weapons. I'm saying make them worth the time it takes to find them, possibly by giving them unique effects/mechanics (like the Scorpion, or maybe guns that have inherent ammo powers). If that's not possible, make them easier to get. Going weeks without getting one, only for them to be "just as viable" as a Rare weapon is more than disappointing.

Modifié par oO Stryfe Oo, 28 septembre 2012 - 05:26 .

[oO Stryfe Oo]

Mendelevosa wrote...

Similar to what another poster said. Statistically, ultra rares should be better than the other weapons, but at the same time they should be less versatile and harder to use. Basically, the higher the rarity, the higher the difficulty of use and the lower the versatility.

For example, commons should be inferior to higher-tier weapons, but easier to use. (i.e. Avenger is low powered, but very easy to use.)

Uncommons should be stronger than commons with more versatility, but weaker than rares and URs. (i.e. Phaeston with its all-around stats and Raptor with its high spare ammo and good RoF and power)

Rares should be stronger than commons and uncommons, but with specialized mechanics for more specific purposes, making them harder to use and less versatile. (i.e. Acolyte with its damage bonus to shields and barriers, but requirement of charging before firing and the Revenant with its high damage and high RoF, but its low accuracy and high recoil)

Ultra rares should be the top of the line weapons, being statistically stronger than the other weapons, but should be the hardest to use and the least versatile. (i.e. Scorpion for it's high damage and crowd control abilities, but it's awkward mechanics and difficulty of effective use, the Particle Rifle for its high damage and large beam duration, but its requirement to charge the beam for a few seconds before it's true potential is unleashed, and the Javelin for its insane damage, ability to see through walls and its high innate penetration ability, but its heavy weight and low spare clip capacity.

With this tier setup, weapons of higher rarity are better than lower tier weapons in terms of stats, but are harder to use and less versatile, preventing them from becoming the "go-to" weapons. If all weapons followed this structure, then true balance could be achieved.

Actually, this ^. "Harder to use, but unquestionably better". This is perfect.

[Lucius Aelius]

In any game where weapons are divided up by rarity in the manner of ME3, not having the rarer weapons be better would be/ is utterly nonsensical, perverse and immensely stupid. Better by far if there were no rarity and every gun was different but equally "good," and capable of purchased directly. That isn't how this game is set up though, and given that the rarity system is what it is, rarer weapons being better is the only thing that makes any sense at all.

[Haersvaelg]

URs should of course be good, but I don't think they should eclipse or obsolete rares. I definitely think that all weapons should be as viable as possible, while retaining their distinctness and not just be this totally ridiculous grind for better gear which spells 'rpg' to a lot of people for some reason.

[Chealec]

Top tier should be Rare weapons so that you've got a decent arsenal for any difficulty without having to have played for 8 months or whatever... URs should be there really to provide diversity, they shouldn't really be any better, overall, than rares - otherwise newer players are going to be gimped on higher difficulty levels.

So, I pretty much agree with the OPs conclusion...

[Lucius Aelius]

^And rarer weapons being better but harder to use is sensible enough, not sure how broadly accurate it is as a statement though (the Harrier isn't terribly hard to use, Talon and Wraith too....)