243 réponses à ce sujet

[Tristam25]

Thermal scope is now your friend, as far as sandstorms/whiteouts go. Couple that with High Velocity Barrel and you can pretty much have a javelin with a Widow. Use it with a Javelin and you have a WMD. (Powers won't be good, but usually I don't care about these. Tactical Cloak is all you need.)

[scheherazade]

ValorOfArms777 wrote...

scheherazade wrote...

ValorOfArms777 wrote...

scheherazade wrote...

1) Sniper rifles are still amazing - far better than most guns. But te best sniper rifles are not better than the best shotguns. So you end up not using sniper rifles... even though they are good.

2) The varying armor DR between difficulty settings makes it impossible to balance fast firing low damage weapons across difficulty settings..

Fast+weak weapons are more affected by armor DR.

100 dmg 10x a second = 1000 dps.
if you have -50 DR, then it's 50dmg 10x a second = 500 dps, -50%

1000 dmg 1x a second = 1000 dps.
if you have -50 DR, then it's 950dmg 1x a second = 950 dps, -5%

One gun's DPS is hurt more than another.

And that's A-OK - in general.
You make some weapons better against armor.



But the problem is this :

- Balance guns with low DR.
- Increase DR
- Fast guns have their DPS devastated, slow guns are almost unaffected.
- What was balanced at low DR, is no longer balanced at high DR.

Effetively, in order to make ARs useful in gold/platinum, you need to bump their damage so high that they would be useful under high DR conditions. Unfortunarely, they would become ungodly death hoses on bronze with low DR.

Basically, you can not EVER balance the guns so long as armor DR changes between difficulty settings.

You need to fix armor DR to one level, and then alter enemy health to make higher difficulty enemies tougher to kill.

Then you can balance all guns once and for all across all difficulties.

-scheherazade

small note each gun is ment for a section of difficulty

Commons-bronze
Uncommon-SIlver
Rare-Gold
UR-semi platnium though plat is a unique type that all guns are in section order of quility of rare cause it also scales...hgiehr than gold whcih I think it shoudn't cause it mixes groups

what the notably thing is a common weapon use in gold is useable but not exceptional unless primed in focus

agold gun will divstate bronze but thats to be expeted and the developers knew this the point is though guns trend to follow the ranks of difficulty not all "simulate this" based on some builds what teh notable thing is ppl don't see is that the addition of the Dragoon in example changed play style

next ppla re FORCING collector matches mostly cause well ya know new content have to play it but again... this is fine I expect it we have to wait for them to fix up the stuff they'll adjsut every group and fix it up so it's back to normal cause again this week is the "test week"

Making Rare guns do more damage than Common is easy with a fixed DR value...
You just make them do more damage.
Then Rare guns are always better on all skills.

Currently, with variying DR:
A Common/Uncommon AR is crap compared to many Rare guns on Gold : A-OK.
A Common/Uncommon AR is great compared to many Rare guns on Bronze : WTF?
That's simply a silly reversal that comes directly from how DR works.

Having Rare guns be better is fine - it should be that way.
The problem is that changing DR, changes how good or bad Rare guns are compared to Commons.

The actual relative-effectiveness changes as DR changes.
Currently, commons aren't always worse than Rares, when DR is low.

A consistent DR would allow you to balance the damage so that Rare is always better than Common, but Common is still usable on other skills (instead of a complete joke/trash).
You can have the best of both worlds.

-scheherazade

I think thats almost the intent if you think about it this way too too much of a good thign can be a "bad thing" overdoign something can be a reversal in itself so I expect that good example is this

The example I choose shall be the Typhoon
The gun was more ment for silver and up useage in usefulness

but upon bronze mode it's rev up is it's down fall as yu hav eto expend a few weaker bulelts out but ocne released at a more devistating rev most groupigns are gone and you need to shut off to conserve ..this draw back means that the guns intial balance in itself also prevents a "greater" use in the lower difficulty might as well not bother too much with too many small fries then

this is pretty normal and again adds a diffrent perspective for every guns use more than the bland "same note" for everything plus puting a damnable 50 DR on Bronze would ruin too many guns period while putting the low end I think it's 25 DR on gold is dumb...and will be totaly bleghed out anyways

That's a good example.
I was thinking less of how a Gold gun's mechanic can make it worse on bronze, and more about how dps varies.




I was thinking something like :
1) use Gold level armor DR all around
2) buff Common/Uncommon guns so that they're modestly worse than Rares at the gold DR level.
3) Rely on different enemy health-pools to make difficulties easier or harder to kill.

That way :
AP mods are still useful.
Common/Uncommon guns can get *some* usage
Rare+ remains better than Common/Uncommon






The main benefit would be that you could participate in Gold+ runs using common guns, and still do well enough to be useful (as opposed to being a drag).

You wouldn't have to scrounge low-income-bronze for ages, hoping that a claymore drops so you can ditch bronze and go to gold.

Granted you could just use a biotic and jump straight to Gold+, but that limits what kind of characters you can play for a while until you unlock+level-up some guns that are worth a darn.
A new player, starting today with all the DLCs, is in for a loooooooong road before he should bother with a weapons based class.

That, and it would be fun to see more gun variety in use.
Currently, people just pound the same 3 or 4 guns in every game all day long (with the rare exception).




For that matter, practically all Rares in typical use are shotguns.
Rare SMGs and ARs are so far inferior to shotguns, that it's a problem in and of itself.
And only one Rare SR is worth taking (Widow), and it's also far inferior to Rare shotguns.
There's just no variety right now.
The only reason people have for not taking a Rare shotgun (if using Rares at all), is because they're out of shotgun amps...

Because the "good" Rare weapons pool is so small, and there are so many Rare weapons, a new player won't have a "good rare with a good level" for far too long.

-scheherazade

Modifié par scheherazade, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:28 .

[Antagony]

Mandalore313 wrote...

Oh trust me, they hate melee combat as well.
Have you tried the turian havoc in a melee spec?
Don't.

Turian Infiltrator isn't too bad with melee. I don't have Havoc yet but I'll spec him for shields when I get him then I guess

[78stonewobble]

@Valor of arms: I agree there is teamwork in the game at times.

The best teamwork I've experienced in a game was an all voice communication squad in the project reality mod for battlefield 2.

1 guy with binoculars spotting for a marksman and directing the marksman and guys clearing out a building room for room. Marksman did take out 1 or 2 guys but the very best was when he was directed to fire a shot into a room to distract the baddies from the "cleaning" squad.

It was absolutely gloriously executed and timed to the second.

EDIT and PS: But obviously that is a slooooooow game when you do it like that. Could easily be like 5 minutes of getting into position followed 2 minutes of combat.

Modifié par 78stonewobble, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:30 .

[cuzIMgood]

Thalamask wrote...

Ummm... no. Either you don't play higher difficulties, or you're lying. Certain playstyles are WAY more effective than others.

I play almost exclusively on platinum.  I can make any weapon/class effective.  Of course certain playstyles are going to be more effective but one can easily make a sniping/long range class top tier.

Thalamask wrote...
Really? REALLY? You can stay in the circle the whole time while playing Gold Reapers or Gold Collectors? You can lay down so much fire that none of the Banshees, Brutes, Scions, Praetorians etc. get close enough to hugz you?

Often times yes.  If it comes down to wave 10 I usually have almost all my rockets left and will just spam them.  Waves 3 and 6 won't have banshees on plat so they aren't too ridiculous.

Thalamask wrote...
I'd love to know what classes and kits you're playing...

Like I said, I use everything.

Thalamask wrote...

Umm... no actually.

Snipers aren't really relevant for this game. The best real-world comparison would be the designated marksman. His job is to shoot everything that's outside of the squad's engagement range. That lasts for about the first 20 seconds of a round, after which the rest of the round is AHHH! RUN AWAY! SHOOT THE THING THAT'S TRYING TO EAT MY FACE!

Real world applications don't apply to games.  You have plenty of time to keep moving around the map, keeping enemies at a distance and sniping them.

Thalamask wrote...
Turian Soldiers and Devastators are designed around a weight-of-fire concept. It's right there in their skills. They're supposed to put more lead (or quantum particles, or whatever we shoot in ME) downrange than any other class. But they have to spend so much time hiding and running away that they don't get the chance to fire continuously and even when they do, there are basically no spam-weapons (e.g. Revenant, Phaeston) that can compare to shotty's. The Typhoon can ALMOST compare, but you can't really assume maxed out UR's for the purposes of balance discussions.

And the Demolisher's little tower station is DESIGNED around being in one place for reasonable periods of time. Half the time, by the time I'm done setting it up the Banshee's / Phantoms have already caught up with me.

Sorry... you're just wrong.

I have played Turian Soldier with revenant in plat since dlc/patch.  Was able to maintain distance and dump a clip, use marksman, and dump another clip into enemies before having to move again.  Sorry... you're just bad.

[ValorOfArms777]

Again we're goign to minus out some points of real life here

first we as high risk front liners of the "war" use special guns that shoot hyper speedy pellets of metal and what not

snipers in this game really are useful but you have to have the right get up the most notable thing is all but a rare few snipers do not have that minus dmg from hip the most BASIC issue of all the snipers... I mean heavily I had so many situations I needed to hip fire but it's really not tasteful or good and results in a huge issue many times

the guns we use in sniper category are all mostly "AMR" a thing with these weapons is they are hard to use. snipers in this game (We anrt gogin with real life versions) these are more like marksmen and btw... I do perform sniper duties on ME3 I will sit in spot for a LONG time picking off select targets allot and then relocate when heats too high. I do agree the NEW additives notably dragoons are very anti aimable but I have equally hard time with a shotgun with this too cause all the stuff in the game has become different beast with the new troops adding a variable that's painful I can pick down geth fine they don't "twitch" reapers haven't changed same old shots, due note I'm average at "sniping" and I am not the best period But I will hit 75-80% of the shots I make unless it's my javelin then reduce it down to 60% cause units move faster than my guns charge up so I perform pierce picking where I use the jav to search through objects to blast, it maybe a game about wave killing but without a proper team plan or a stability you fall apart- example a team of pure salerians with decoys against reapers is prob not going to win cause #1 they are going to fight over marauders shields when they wanna regain a quick boost next through they have a ton of decoys enemies focus ratio will eventually give away and then kill them instead as decoys have a "decreasing returns" type effect in most cases like sabotage though it's returns refresh somewhat like tac cloak, next these guns again were built mostly for pin point fire on bigger units like banshee, atlas,prime, ravenger, brute, pyros (to soem extent), engineers (packs), turrets ( safty distance), the current preats, and the scions and if you're really good abominations to cause detonations on foes I do agree though the snipers selective grouping is a tad sad.... as single shot snipers are almost screwed outa the game due to multi snipers

Modifié par ValorOfArms777, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:28 .

[78stonewobble]

I totally dig the tactical cloak but it DOES make a sniper that less dependent on someone to watch his back. IE. he can get out of tighter spots and maneuver much more rapidly / safely around the field.

[Jos Hendriks]

Hey Thalamask, keeping things friendly, but when your position has 2 arguments that directly refer to levels, I'd think that giving you the insight into how they get designed with long range in mind as much as short range (even moreso in fact because long range requires more thought than short range) would still count as arguments against the position you have which is per your thread title: "BioWare seems to hate ranged combat. Why?"

Just sayin'.

[Parallax Demon]

OP; I completely agree with you.

Beside a Geth Rocket Trooper, a Nemesis and a Marauder, every enemy in this game wants to get as close to you in the fastest way possible or they have some kind of power to damage you from the other side of the map.

To be forced out of your place not once, not twice, not three times but countless times during a wave, while running away with low health and shields, is just frustating.

Only play Pugs on Gold against Reapers nowadays, just because if there is no teamwork, the stunlock and those Flying Bombers will get you killed when playing against Geth, and BW adding hard to kill Dragoons to Cerberus makes that class something you only want to fight in a full Biotic team.

The only way to be effective as a defensive player is to have at least two teammates who cover you close quarters, otherwise you probably get more kills with your backup gun then with your main weapon.

Modifié par Parallax Demon, 10 octobre 2012 - 10:51 .

[Kel Riever]

I find sniping to be particularly awful on almost all levels. While cooperation helps, it really isn't helping that much.

First off, if you are a great shot, you can hit anything. Doesn't mean sniping isn't god awful. But basically snipers have been nerfed, and then the improvements haven't been significant enough to compenesate. Secondly, almost anything causes the screen to shake. Third, though things like headshots on heavies are back, well, there's no reason I can't just use some other weapon to hit the head.

Now, having watched the evolution of Assault Rifles from worst weapons in the game to being quite usable, I have hope for sniping. But really, all the great sniping weapons for hitting in the head are heavy pistols. And if you are looking to do great damage in one shot, you can cross the distance to your enemy safely with a shotgun and do more damage than it takes you to draw a bead and shoot with your sniper rifle.

More work needs to be done to make sniping matter, yet not become overpowered.

[UnRestrikted]

-JP- wrote...

The game is a lot easier if you've got UR's at level X.

The problem is getting to that level. I've played this game since launch (you can peep my total playtime in my manifest) almost daily. From March to August, that's how long it took for me to obtain a Black Widow I!

[78stonewobble]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Hey Thalamask, keeping things friendly, but when your position has 2 arguments that directly refer to levels, I'd think that giving you the insight into how they get designed with long range in mind as much as short range (even moreso in fact because long range requires more thought than short range) would still count as arguments against the position you have which is per your thread title: "BioWare seems to hate ranged combat. Why?"

Just sayin'.

Hi jos... I have noticed that the maps do have long sightlines and sniper spots. Maybe I'm unlucky in my games but based on my, admittedly subjective and statistically insignificant, experience; there doesn't seem to be enough "incentive" to use them. Other than very small breathers when moving from A to B.

Eg. an optimally placed team on giant would force enemies to push through a withering hail of sniper/ar fire from afar, in the open and buy time. It seems like a good idea but...

Well it's happened in only 1 or 2 games (out of god knows how many games) for me and I saw something like it in a duo playthrough of it.

Atleast thats my experience...

[silencekills]

The Mad Hanar wrote...

Yoshiyuki Ly wrote...

I'm sick of saying this. Sniper Rifles have a steeper learning curve and are more punishing to misuse. It doesn't matter which map you're on, which character you are using. If you like a particular playstyle, you will find a way to make it work no matter the situation.

Exactly. People call the Javelin and the Kishock garbage all the time but once you learn those two weapons you can be practically unstoppable. Though I will admit that Sniper Rifles are entirely dependant on the player using it. You have to warm up with them to make the best use out of them. If you're having a bad day, use a shotgun. Preferably a full or semi auto.

What?

WHAT!?

[Cyonan]

Parallax Demon wrote...

OP; I completely agree with you.

Beside a Geth Rocket Trooper, a Nemesis and a Marauder, every enemy in this game wants to get as close to you in the fastest way possible or they have some kind of power to damage you from the other side of the map.

To be forced out of your place not once, not twice, not three times but countless times during a wave, while running away with low health and shields, is just frustating.

Only play Pugs on Gold against Reapers nowadays, just because if there is no teamwork, the stunlock and those Flying Bombers will get you killed when playing against Geth, and BW adding hard to kill Dragoons to Cerberus makes that class something you only want to fight in a full Biotic team.

The only way to be effective as a defensive player is to have at least two teammates who cover you close quarters, otherwise you probably get more kills with your backup gun then with your main weapon.

If you could keep the enemy at distance without moving just by yourself, the game would become 100 times easier than it currently is when you have a group.

It's a co-op game. What can and can't happen when soloing shouldn't factor into the balance of things. A long range fighter can be very effective, they just can't sit in one spot all game long unless they have backup.

[landylan]

The enemies make long range combat harder and harder. The funny thing is that it's easier to get blind sided while sitting still sniping because enemies are creeping up on you unlike when you're constantly on the move.

Long range is also a far more inefficient way of killing. A widow is nothing compared to a claymore infiltrator(I say infiltrator because snipers suck on everything else.).

Snipers nerfed when they weren't even the OP part about infiltrators.

There's a reason I never end up with a sniper infiltrator in my lobby now.

[gh0st wh1sp3r]

They do need more maps based around long-ranged combat. Maybe a Collector ship location where they make the map a bunch of small bunkers separated by long bridges suspended over pits. Lots of open space and sniper perches would make it a great map for long range and finally remove the focus from CQB.

Or based on Omega, you could use lots of long hallways with lots of short debris objects to duck behind. With enemies like Cerberus and Geth, you'd be playing whack-a-mole with bullets. To the face.

Longer maps with a focus on range would be greatly appreciated. Plus, it's not like they'd remove the old maps that people love.

[Nanter]

Thalamask wrote...

Nanter wrote...
No means of offense, but your behavior rather seems to be like the intention of this popular image below (Ok, adding an image didn't work. It simply said:" If you can't win an argument, correct their grammar instead"). I think that's why you rather get negative response.

You can only have a debate/argument if the person actually addresses the points under discussion. To simply the comments made, the discussion went like this:

Me: Politics is evil. Also, they're taxing my smokes.
Jos: Why you smoke ciggies... pipes are better.
Me: That's probably true, but you kinda missed the point.
Jos: Why you say I missed the point? I didn't even talk about politics.
Me: Yeah... politics was the point... that's why I said you missed it.

So no. If you actually read the posts, you'd see that he wanted to know why I said he'd "failed", and I pointed out that I only said he hadn't "tried". There was no grammar correction there, simply a clarification on the meaning of my comment.

Nanter wrote...
And concerning your issue: I play rather CQC but synergize well with snipers by keeping enemies off their flanks while staggering and delaying enemies entering mid-range combat within their line of sight (ballistic blades ftw [smilie]http://social.bioware.com/images/forum/emoticons/tongue.png[/smilie]) So in my opinion, your only "disatvantage" is that you need teamwork in order to wreck your enemies as a sniper.

You realise that even this supports my argument? CQC can be played totally solo, or with a team. Ranged combat requires teamwork and somebody to watch your back.

Nice balance, there.

Hmm, you either seem to have misunderstood my point. I will put it in another way to explain: if I shout at another people, they will more likely react negatively than when I simply talk to them. In your case, you rather made some excursions in proper use of language than putting your efforts in reworking your statement, so it's more clear to other people.(In case of your conversation: What if he simply meant pipes as a example to pay less taxes for tobacco, because he thought you where complaining about  the amount of money needed for getting smokes?) Because of that your style of communication seemed rather unfriendly. I used this example as an icon from popular unfriendly behavior in forums but I must admit I should have chosen another example.

Now for your second statement: I completely disagree with your interpretation that CQC can be played totally solo. I talked about crowd control abilities and within this game such abilities always come at the expense of damage. So I got the abilities to bind enemies but I simply lack the damage needed for handling them. And that's the point when I'm happy to have some high DPS (i.e. a sniper ) around which can handle this.

[RxP4IN]

I think the OP has "long-ranged" confused with "I want to sit in the back, never move, have the enemy stand out in the open and never once encroach on my position."

[Thalamask]

78stonewobble wrote...

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Hey Thalamask, keeping things friendly, but when your position has 2 arguments that directly refer to levels, I'd think that giving you the insight into how they get designed with long range in mind as much as short range (even moreso in fact because long range requires more thought than short range) would still count as arguments against the position you have which is per your thread title: "BioWare seems to hate ranged combat. Why?"

Just sayin'.

Hi jos... I have noticed that the maps do have long sightlines and sniper spots. Maybe I'm unlucky in my games but based on my, admittedly subjective and statistically insignificant, experience; there doesn't seem to be enough "incentive" to use them. Other than very small breathers when moving from A to B.

Eg. an optimally placed team on giant would force enemies to push through a withering hail of sniper/ar fire from afar, in the open and buy time. It seems like a good idea but...

Well it's happened in only 1 or 2 games (out of god knows how many games) for me and I saw something like it in a duo playthrough of it.

Atleast thats my experience...

That's kinda what I was getting at, Jos... it certainly wasn't a personal attack.

There's no single factor that makes defensive combat so much less effective than offensive combat. To use your example, the maps by themselves are fine. There's plenty of sight lines and ranged areas etc.

But if you combine that with: have to move all the time, hard cover is close to suicide, enemy units that are better at your job than you are even though they shouldn't be and there's more of 'em all the time etc., then the design as a whole becomes pro-CQC, anti-range, pro-offense, anti-defence.

I know this is a game, not the real world, but when you're outnumbered and outgunned, logic dictates either:
a) getting the hell out and avoiding engagement (not exactly a winning gameplay design);
fighting a guerilla war to wear them down (which MP does totally fine); or
c) bunkering down and using a defensible position, the terrain and your superior training and equipment to defeat the enemy.

We're supposed to be playing the best the galaxy has to offer. Option c) should totally be a feasible gamestyle, but the gameplay is designed to punish this option... even while creating classes that seem ideal for it.

It's schizophrenic. On the one hand, you have classes and weapons (and yes... map locations! ) that scream "Hold the line!", while on the other hand everything else is conspiring to punish you if you try.

To me, it seems like a desperate attempt to pander to the 14-yo, foul-mouthed, twitching, bigotted, CoD-stereotype demographic rather than the franchises core playerbase, and this direction scares me because of what I percieve it implying for ME4.

RxP4IN wrote...

I think the OP has "long-ranged" confused with "I want to sit in the back, never move, have the enemy stand out in the open and never once encroach on my position."

And I think you haven't read enough of the thread to comment, and are making posts of no value that contribute nothing to the discussion. Try again, hmm?

Modifié par Thalamask, 10 octobre 2012 - 11:50 .

[stjabr]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Thalamask wrote...

While Jos makes some good points on the maps, he's still completely failed to address the original point - Why are so many changes being made with the express purpose of forcing players into aggressive, run 'n gun tactics (where it just happens that shotty's are usually better than ranged weapon... but ignore this bit!)?

Sorry, but saying I failed to address something implies I tried addressing it. I merely commented on the levels side of things, because that's my work.

Thanks for the responses Jos - I'm in a strange position of sharing OP's sentiments about the shift to CQC prevalence, but not as a result of level design. I completely agree with your points on the LR opportunities on each map.

What I wanted to ask, was if you or the other devs had personally noticed a shift in difficulty/play style since the DLC dropped? The Dragoon is Cerberus' only real gung-ho unit that charges in and engages at close range, flushing people from cover, while the Geth Bomber is obviously designed specifically to fill the gap left by Geth's inability to use grenades.
The problem is, both of the new units attack at such speed, in such high numbers that snipers no longer have the chance to spend any real time in these sniping sweet spots, and that cover in general is far less effective. Both new units bring the whole combat style in closer as they provide both time and cover for the rest of the enemies to get in closer than they ever used to have the chance to do. Combine this with enemies' ability to spawn at multiple points simultaneously, and snipers are virtually certain to get shot in the back as soon as they've found a spot from which to provide cover for the rest of the squad.

To be clear - I'm not exactly complaining, because I actually agree that Geth needs Bombers and Cerberus needs Dragoons, my issue at the moment is that they are probably a little too effective right now, at all levels.

[CeeMurda7]

theres no point to argue with the level designer lol

[EnvyTB075]

I would've thought that ditching ME2's combat was indicative enough of their preference for in-your-face shootyshootymcbangbangslash combat...

[Thalamask]

EnvyTB075 wrote...

I would've thought that ditching ME2's combat was indicative enough of their preference for in-your-face shootyshootymcbangbangslash combat...

Maybe so... but that doesn't mean we can't try to change it.

The more we shout now, the more likely they are to consider the impacts when building ME4!

:innocent:

[StarcloudSWG]

 The maps are, indeed, designed to encourage movement and short range combat, when taken in combination with the various enemies.

The AI is designed to get up close and in your face, no matter the kind of mob. The maps are designed to discourage being able to hunker down and *take your time* to line up shots, so you're always snap-firing.

Even when you do have long sightlines, you have so little cover that you can't actually snipe.

End result, all combat takes place in the point-blank to medium range categories, where shotguns, pistols, and SMGs prevail.

Then you look at the way recent classes have been designed. They're mostly short or point blank ranged, whether support or combat.

Modifié par StarcloudSWG, 11 octobre 2012 - 01:24 .

[Thalamask]

StarcloudSWG wrote...

 The maps are, indeed, designed to encourage movement and short range combat, when taken in combination with the various enemies.

The AI is designed to get up close and in your face, no matter the kind of mob. The maps are designed to discourage being able to hunker down and *take your time* to line up shots, so you're always snap-firing.

Even when you do have long sightlines, you have so little cover that you can't actually snipe.

End result, all combat takes place in the point-blank to medium range categories, where shotguns, pistols, and SMGs prevail.

Then you look at the way recent classes have been designed. They're mostly short or point blank ranged, whether support or combat.

Yay! Somebody else gets it!

Take a cookie!