DatFeel wrote...
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.
This probably has to be the dumbest thing I've ever heard on here, and that's saying something. Good job.
Yet for me your comment would win that award, it's the equivalent of a heckler from the crowd, you offer nothing to the debate, just the throwing of a verbal rotten cabage.
I think I agree with Mendelevosa, all weapons should be viable (note I say viable, not optimal) in all levels, but as weapons get rare & UR they should be more specific and ultimately have greater optimisation for certain builds and in certain situations, but not make other weapns entirely obsolete.
So the basic starter common weapons should still have a place in a platinum match, they should be the weapons to learn the ropes with, so be the most forgivng, but not be obsolete and therefore worthess once you gain rarer weapons, why would they be out on the battlefield otherwise? So to make them such they should be lighter and have the largest clip capacity, this allows for them to be more forgiving when learning for lower characters, but still have a use as they allow you to fire more and spray more ammo and be used as sidearms for other more powerful weapons you find later.
Then the uncommon weapons should be slight variations to the common ones. So lose some of the clip capacity, but gain extra damage, or gain a bit of weight but hit harder, simple changes like that.
Then the rares should start to do something slightly different, be more specific in their uses and maybe start to optimise more with certain builds and characters.
The URs should do something truely unique, the Scorpion is a great example of this, the Acolyte should be an UR too.
I just don't like the idea that nce you gain an UR of a weapon type you wouldn't ever look at other weapons again, obsoletion is not a good thing. Besides there's no need for URs or rares to just be better versions of common or uncommon weapons, because the game already has that mechanic in the I, II, III, IV, V - X upgrading system.
Retour en haut
) it would still be a damn good weapon. Though I think it would be better to buff the more common ARs to be better first. It's sad how much better a Harrier I is compared to a Revenant X.
