191 réponses à ce sujet

[zRz Tyr]

Why shouldnt they? What is the point of getting weapons that took you ages if they arent any good? Unfortunantly the B-company fails to understand that with certain weapons.

[The Shadow Broker]

"Should Ultra Rares be the best guns in the game?" 

Yes. Absolutely.

[Iggister]

Obviously they should.

[Hellfire257]

Yes.

[QU67]

At the very least, the Ultra Rares shouldn't be nerfed. *cough* Typhoon *cough*

[ToLazy4Name]

How i think it should work:

Each gun in a category (Common, Uncommon, Rare, Ultra Rare) should serve a specific role, and then as you progress up the rarity tree, you get guns that fill that role, but are better than the more common versions. Example: Mantis, Widow. Both of them have the same role, being powerful single shot rifles, except that with that particular example it skips from Common to Rare. So, each gun should fill a certain role, and then have better versions of that gun (Not the same gun, simply better guns to fill it's role) in the different categories.

[Astartes Marine]

I think that Premise 3 is the best overall.  This "tier" system is a load of junk and I'd scrap it altogether and put all guns except a few like N7s on the same level.  I would have of course, done this from the start.  Such a drastic change now would muck alot up.

ME2 had it pretty good with the likes of the Avenger still being useful and potentially still excellent despite the situation/difficulty. 

Modifié par Astartes Marine, 29 septembre 2012 - 03:26 .

[Djarknaein]

I think common should be viable on bronze, uncommon silver, rare gold and ultra rare on platinum. As it stands right now many ultra rare are not platinum viable and some rares can't handle gold. For example: Javelin, gpr, gpsmg, Indra to name a few.

[TheCinC]

I think all weapons should be viable, at least on Bronze and Silver, with Rares and Ultra-Rares being slightly better and making it a bit easier to play Gold and Platinum. Ultra-Rares should definitely have an edge, damage-wise, even if they have to be handled in a certain way, such as the Rheegar and Piranha doing heaps of damage, but only at close range which is risky, especially on Gold and Platinum. As I said elsewhere, I disagree with nerfing every weapon that is used a lot, just because it is popular. Only a few weapons are really popular because most other weapons are just not useful enough on higher difficulties, meaning those few weapons excell at lower difficulties, so why not use them all the time? But bringing those good weapons back to the level of the others, just means it doesn't matter which one you choose, they all do too little damage to really matter, making the game more of a grind.

I'm hopeful for sniper rifles to become useful again, Eric Fagnan recently posted bosses would get headshots back. That would bring an entire category of weapons back into play, as DPS-wise, they are inferior and due to slow reload, low ammo and having to be fired while zoomed in have too many drawbacks to be used at close and medium range. Any weapon with serious drawbacks should have some clear advantages to counterbalance them.

[DHKany]

Yes. but not to the point where they invalidate the existence of every other weapon.

[Ronnie Blastoff]

Ultra rares aren't the best guns in the game?

1.Scorpion - BEST GUN IN THE GAME, 100% stagger (even bosses) ~100% ammo activation, hits AoE, does great damage, EXTREMELY lightweight, (can always be carried as secondary weapon, even if don't need it--- STOP CARRING 1 WEAPON!)
-Downsides: learning to shoot?

2. Cerberus Harrier - High damage full auto AR. Medium Weight (@X), Low Recoil, Medium Accuracy.
-Downsides: Low Clip/Reserves.

3. Typhoon- (Just recently "ninja" fixed, now does listed damage. (at least @ X) Mid~High Damage Full auto AR. Medium Accuracy, Medium Recoil, 2nd Highest? Clip, 1.5x Modifier against S/B/A, Built in Armor Piercing, Built in damage mod after 0.75 seconds.
-Downsides: Heavy as Black Widow, Claymore.
(Hurricane ties for 3rd, this is actually more UR than URs)

4. Pirahna (Not an UR, but at the moment still one of top weapons)

5. Paladin - Indra - Talon - Wraith- All relatively light for they're classes, all great damage, all great relative accuracy.

6. Prothean Particle Rifle.

7. Everything else.

At the moment I'm always using at least 1 UR. Now do I think they should BE THE BEST guns in the game, realisticly no. Doesn't matter if they are rare or not, do you want someone like me to join your game and just angel skeet all over enemies because I have everything at X?

Thats really no different than the current state of NEWBS being in gold/platinum because they have certain weapons unlocked and they think they can cut it in higher difficulties. I've played with people with level X URs that had no idea that Atlus and Brutes could insta-kill.

Honestly i don't care if someone can win a match "just fine," because they have a weapon. Winning "just fine" is no different than being carried and not noticing because someones to busy trying to rack up points on a broken scoreboard.

Knowing that I can rely on them when shyt hits the fan is more important. I've seen plenty GI with pirahnas get overwhelmed and have NO FYQKIN CLUE how to handle the situation (Speaking something as simple as pull out a dam rocket....) I've "had" people on my using a krysae (pre-nerf) who thought because they had the most points they were "skilled" only to come and find out when they used any other, non-broken weapon they'd get the shyt stomped out of them like any other newb.


tl:dr - NO, UR shouldn't be the best guns in the game, though they should be the best at particular purposes. (RoF, high damage, overall ability, ect.) UR being the best is broken, broken guns make shytty players think its ok to play in gold/platinum without any medigel... yeah... I want that...

Modifié par Ronnie Blastoff, 29 septembre 2012 - 04:40 .

[Tallgeese_VII]

ULTRA RAREs need to be BETTER than other weapons.
NOT ALL WEAPONs need to be good in GOLD/PLAT.

[Riot Inducer]

I don't really think they should all be objectively better in every way than other weapons. I do however think that all Ultra Rares should have a much lower variance between I & X due to how difficult they are to level up. A lot of URs end up not competing with lower level weapons whatsoever just because they are stuck at low levels far longer than lower rarity guns.

[thegamefreek78648]

Should Ultra-rares be the best guns in the game?

Yes.

[ParatrooperSean]

Yes, of course ultra rare weapons should overall be better. Otherwise why give a damn about unlocking them?

[DatFeel]

Mendelevosa wrote...

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.

Way to respond with a single sentence that does nothing to contribute to the discussion. As a matter of fact, it's ironic because you response was very idiotic. Next time try to explain your point instead of insulting someone for their views.

I could sit here and ask you for your expert opinion on how you'd change each gun, or I could tell you how unless you have higher level URs the choice between weapons aren't exactely so vanilla. But, really, have you ever played a video game before? Do you not understand the whole reward for time invested in the game system works? Making them hard to use would defeat the whole purpose. It was just a stupid post but I apolgize, it wasn't the "dumbest thing i've ever heard on here".

Modifié par DatFeel, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[hawgwild5757]

The rarer weapons shouldn't only be better, they should be a hell of a lot better. And while there's no reason for common weapons to be unusable in Platinum, but it should be a hell of a lot harder to win with them. A hell of a lot harder.

I come from RPGs, and there's no way the wood sword you get when you start the game should be as good as the +4 Diamond Flaming Sword you have when you're 3/4 through the game and level 40. Why would it be? You're not facing diseased rats anymore, you're facing dragons. And while you might kill that dragon with your wooden starter sword, expect it to be a hell of a lot harder and take a hell of a lot longer.

Honestly, ME3 has it's roots in RPGs and I get the feeling that some of you have never played an RPG before.

[Mendelevosa]

DatFeel wrote...

Mendelevosa wrote...

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.

Way to respond with a single sentence that does nothing to contribute to the discussion. As a matter of fact, it's ironic because you response was very idiotic. Next time try to explain your point instead of insulting someone for their views.

I could sit here and ask you for your expert opinion on how you'd change each gun, or I could tell you how unless you have higher level URs the choice between weapons aren't exactely so vanilla. But, really, have you ever played a video game before? Do you not understand the whole reward for time invested in the game system works? Making them hard to use would defeat the whole purpose. It was just a stupid post, I apoligize.

Well then explain how you would make the URs stronger without completely invalidating every single weapon in lower tiers. I would rather not feel punished for working to unlock rares and below when I end up getting something better.

And don't say, "Well just use the lower tier wepaons if you want to still use every gun." You and I both know well enough that people are NOT going to pick weaker weapons for the sake of "Variety." If people get something better, they will most likely never use anything weaker ever again.

Just look at Call of Duty (I really hate using this franchise as a good example of anything BTW). Whenever you increase in level, you get more weapons. As you progress, you get weapons that vary in stats and uses. The weapons that you recieve at higher levels don't completely outshine earlier-obtained weapons. As a matter of fact, usually the first weapons avilable to you (M16, MP5, ect) end up becoming the go-to weapons because of their all-around performance. Because of this, all weapons in CoD are just as viable as all others, but at the same time, each person prefers specific guns based on their playstyle. In MW3, I prefer the FAD for its looks, Rate of fire, range, and accuracy, even though other weapons may have better stopping power than it. No weapon in CoD is "better than the rest." But at the same time, they balance the weapons well enough for all to be viable and equally chosen depending on one's playstyle.

Personally, I think this tier system was a mistake from the get go. If all weapons had the same rarity, we wouldn't even have these discussions about "Why weapon of X rarity should be better than everything else.

Modifié par Mendelevosa, 29 septembre 2012 - 05:43 .

[Darth_Atreyu]

Yes.

[Rokayt]

If getting these things is so hard, then you must realize that them being better is pointless in a game where skill has significantly more impact on your ability to play well.

Why should the best (Non Farmer players,but with farmers they didn't really earn anything,) players even need a monopoly on the best gear in the game as well?

The endgame should be about enjoying your game and experimenting, not about roflstomping newer players with both a better understanding of the game, and better gear (Which, quite frankly, if you cared about cooperation as much as your as your frantic arguments about it justifying you having objectively better weapons suggests..... You would have no need of better weapons, since you might actually be cooperating, instead of running around killing stuff with three meat-shields on your side.)

[BattleCop88]

Definately. If not, there would be no incentive to get them.

[AZZKIKN420]

Would be nice if they were good after taking me 6-8 months to unlock them by time i unlock them they are nerfed. Would be nice if they were still good when i get them for once. So yes the Ultra-Rares should be good.

[Jay_Hoxtatron]

Djarknaein wrote...

I think common should be viable on bronze, uncommon silver, rare gold and ultra rare on platinum. As it stands right now many ultra rare are not platinum viable and some rares can't handle gold. For example: Javelin, gpr, gpsmg, Indra to name a few.

You couldn't be more wrong.

[Djarknaein]

Jay_Hoxtatron wrote...

Djarknaein wrote...

I think common should be viable on bronze, uncommon silver, rare gold and ultra rare on platinum. As it stands right now many ultra rare are not platinum viable and some rares can't handle gold. For example: Javelin, gpr, gpsmg, Indra to name a few.

You couldn't be more wrong.

Sure I could : The harrier is a bad weapon.

See...