183 réponses à ce sujet

[Ragnakuna]

Every time I look at your avatar I have the urge to watch 'Is This a Zombie.'

Back on subject: The issue I see isn't that more damage should be added to the weapons - just bonuses to what they used to do in ME2. When these were taking away, a lot of utility was stripped from AR's in general. From what I remember they were the most effective against both armor and shields, however this bonus didn't carry over to ME3 and the MP.

If we had this utility back, I think some of the lower quality weapons would see more usage or at least be more useful.

The biggest issue I have with the rapid fire weapons that don't have large damage bonuses it's risk isn't rewarded. If they staggered or slowed advancing enemies. The game mechanics are largely what's making these weapons ineffective, not pure damage itself.

[Rokayt]

I would love to fix these thing through ways other then raw damage, but thats almost my only choice.

Some guns would benefit from a headshot bonus more.....

But I am still extremely limited in my options here.

Damage can be buffed, headshot multipliers can be buffed, weight can be buffed, reserve ammo can be, magazine size can be...... Rof, accuracy, and recoil can be, but those three actively change the feel of the gun.


The others... Simply dont swing like that.

Modifié par Rokayt, 16 octobre 2012 - 05:56 .

[Maker MEDA]

Someone buff the Disciple pleease.

[Rokayt]

Maker MEDA wrote...

Someone buff the Disciple pleease.

I have a suggestion for that on page two, a link to it is in the OP.

Is that adequate?

[xxrpggamemanxx]

Rokayt wrote...

Maker MEDA wrote...

Someone buff the Disciple pleease.

I have a suggestion for that on page two, a link to it is in the OP.

Is that adequate?

It isn't an adequate buff though D: Needs more M-920 Cain.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

While it is nice to see a thoughtful, civil discussion about weapon balance, be aware that many of these weapons were supposed to be bad and were always intended on being surpassed, others were intended to stay as a sub-par useable alternative. Many lacklustre weapons are perfectly good to use, and there is a whole tier of lightweight weapons intended to be choices for casters, then another tier of weapons that fit somewhere between the "good" powerful guns and the lightweight ones for people who want a balanced all-round class - though these tend to be the ones that get left out.

[Grunt_Platform]

A 22% buff sounds alright for the Scimitar, but I'd like to point out one of the fundamental flaws of the gun I think you overlooked:

At rank X, it only has a large enough spare capacity to reload 4.25 times. For a light weight, fairly low damage gun that's dependent on spamming the trigger to deal its full DPS, this is a really really serious handicap, and not really one that feels like a proper defining flaw either.

I'm not sure what you'd do with that, but the last time I played with it, it was definitely an issue.

And increasing spare ammo capacity is definitely one of the ways Fagnan has buffed weaker guns in the past.

Modifié par EvanKester, 16 octobre 2012 - 07:19 .

[Arppis]

I wish Avenger would get a buff, I like it's style. Sadly you really can't use the gun that much as main source of damage.

[Steven83]

The solutions to bad guns is not to use them.
Course, that'd be nice if we can just strike them off the list of our random pack rewards, but nope, they're just fodder for RNG to screw over the players hoping for a real upgrades.

Saving the Raptor. HAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Good one.

[Foxtrot813]

Your ego is showing, Rokayt.

[Rokayt]

EvanKester wrote...

A 22% buff sounds alright for the Scimitar, but I'd like to point out one of the fundamental flaws of the gun I think you overlooked:

At rank X, it only has a large enough spare capacity to reload 4.25 times. For a light weight, fairly low damage gun that's dependent on spamming the trigger to deal its full DPS, this is a really really serious handicap, and not really one that feels like a proper defining flaw either.

I'm not sure what you'd do with that, but the last time I played with it, it was definitely an issue.

And increasing spare ammo capacity is definitely one of the ways Fagnan has buffed weaker guns in the past.

This is an exceptionally good point.

I have used it on the DV, so my constant grenade restocking.... Probably made me overlook it personally.

K1LL STREAK wrote...

While it is nice to see a thoughtful,
civil discussion about weapon balance, be aware that many of these
weapons were supposed to be bad and were always intended on being
surpassed, others were intended to stay as a sub-par useable
alternative. Many lacklustre weapons are perfectly good to use, and
there is a whole tier of lightweight weapons intended to be choices for
casters, then another tier of weapons that fit somewhere between the
"good" powerful guns and the lightweight ones for people who want a
balanced all-round class - though these tend to be the ones that get
left out.

Its a good thing that this entire thread so far has been buffing caster weapons to the level of significantly lighter caster weapons.

Steven83 wrote...

Saving the Raptor. HAAHAHAHAHAAHAHHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
Good one.

I never said I suceeded, only that that was my goal.

Foxtrot813 wrote...

Your ego is showing, Rokayt.

My ego is incredibly faux. Its much more a part of the name Rokayt, and what this alias has been to me then me shining through.

Modifié par Rokayt, 16 octobre 2012 - 07:27 .

[Fyurian2]

Ragnakuna wrote...

Every time I look at your avatar I have the urge to watch 'Is This a Zombie.'

Back on subject: The issue I see isn't that more damage should be added to the weapons - just bonuses to what they used to do in ME2. When these were taking away, a lot of utility was stripped from AR's in general. From what I remember they were the most effective against both armor and shields, however this bonus didn't carry over to ME3 and the MP.

It's not so much that they were the most effective, but that they were effective against both.
SMGs were ideal for stripping shields, and shotguns/sniper rifles/pistols could munch through armour far better. Assault Rifles were, as you point out, the utility weapon, damaging to both shields and armour equally, but not as effective as specialisation.

If we had this utility back, I think some of the lower quality weapons would see more usage or at least be more useful.

Unfortunately I think the massive difference in how weapons function between ME2 and ME3 is more than just a case of reverting to ME2 weapon roles. I'm pretty sure it would require a fairly large re-write of the weapons system.

The biggest issue I have with the rapid fire weapons that don't have large damage bonuses it's risk isn't rewarded. If they staggered or slowed advancing enemies. The game mechanics are largely what's making these weapons ineffective, not pure damage itself.

Given that automatic/burst/semi-auto fire types all do different levels of damage (automatic being lowest, semi-auto being highest) it is a case of "pure damage".
Phaeston is out-damaged by the Vindicator, and both are out-damaged by the Mattock - on single targets. The heavier a weapon (base weight) along with what kind of firing mode dictates the damage.
Putting into RPG terms, Full-auto is "DPS". Burst is, well, burst damage, and semi-auto is spike damage.

Outside of certain classes and kits, full-auto weapons will always be sub-par when compared to burst and semi-auto weapons.
The risk for full-auto weapons is having to keep sustained fire on a target until it dies. As you say, there's no reward, because the full-auto weapons do the least amount of damage. Sustained fire means being out of cover longer, which means being exposed to enemy fire for longer.
They might have more ammo available, but full-auto weapons really need it to make an impact when compared to other weapons.

[EVILFLUFFMONSTER]

I do appreciate what you are trying to do, I was just pointing out that some of these weapons for some reason do not seem intended to be as good as the rest of the weapons, I think in some cases it is the team trying to stick to a form of weapon lore, rather than completely balance everything relatively. You have standard issue alliance weapons, Turian weapons, geth weapons etc which are low power high accuracy stuff, and then you get the heavier specialist weapons, and then the rare alien weapons or hard to find ones. They even tried to tie lore into the rarity of the weapons, hence why some ultra-rares are not necessarily as powerful as you would expect compared to gold rares, you wouldn't be likely to see Sabers around as they are custom-made for each owner, or the wraith, or the particle rifle etc - they were put there for lore rather than balance. I still think they did a good job of making a lot of the ultra rares unique and useful without simply making them more powerful.

It is a shame that guns that featured so prominently in ME2 now seem very weak, like the Kassa Locust, Or the Incisor and Katana. This could be because they are pretty standard issue weapons, and in ME3 with the races allied together they have a greater pool of resources and technology to choose from, outdating the previous stuff.

Saying this, a lot of your buffs are keeping quite well with this, I just wanted to say that weapon balance amongst each other is not Biowares only concern, but each weapons place in the Mass Effect universe is also an important factor to them.

Hopefully though, your ideas will inspire some more buffs for the weaker weapons, I personally want them to raise the minimum bullet damage versus armour from 5 damage to somewhere around 10 - it doesn't make any weapons more powerful, it doesn't buff powerful weapons at all, it just means that the very weakest weapons suck less without making them overpowered. They would still have a penalty vs armour and their damage versus health and shields wouldn't change - they just would be less useless on higher difficulties, where there is a greater prominency of armoured foes.

[JaimasOfRaxis]

cgj wrote...

devs stated they balance commons around bronze, slap the avenger on a HS which is also a starter character and you can breeze through bronze like you can breeze through gold with the harrier

good accuracy, no recoil, good ROF, great reaload speed
just not much damage

the one that really needs buff are things like the geth pulse rifle, which are supposedly balanced around gold when even on bronze it does barely better than the avenger

The Devs also said the Typhoon in its previously "I get less accurate as I level up and have bugged armor piercing" form was a really great gun.

Trust  me, good cgj, you don't want to go down this road.

Modifié par JaimasOfRaxis, 16 octobre 2012 - 10:42 .

[megabeast37215]

I've been using all the subpar weapons OP was talking about... for the challenges. The Disciple needs the most attention. That thing is pure utter crap. I'm pretty sure the damage from Incendiary III ammo is more than the actual gun itself generates.

[CrashLegacy]

I've got to disagree with the role of the Avenger in MP. The gun when set next to other assault rifles only finds a niche as a choice for casters (and a rather poor choice at that). I think this is a poor choice for the avenger, I'll explain.
The Avenger is the first assault rifle the player has access to, it is standard issue among a number of militaries. As the first weapon of its type the player gets their hands on in both ME 2&3's campaign and in multilayer the gun should be indicative of the entire class. It should be a solid gun with decent utility. Yet the actual gun is no where near the average characteristics of assault rifles.
Look at the Mantis and Katana, or even the Predator, by comparison those weapons represent their classes far better then the avenger represents assault rifles. The starting weapons might be on the lower end of the overall chart, but they are not nearly as thoroughly outclassed by their contemporaries (uncommons).
The weapon should be heavier (after all there are far more assault rifles heavier then as light or lighter then it) and have the bite to match its beefier weight.

[Rokayt]

*Yawn.*

Whoa, hey. This stuff.

Ill get back to this soon.

[tntk252]

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas for an Incisor buff, Rokayt?

[Rudest]

While working on my shotgun mastery I noticed how... satisfying the Katana is to fire. It's the sound it makes <.<

I am also in agreement with you that the Avenger needs a buff; I feel it should be uplifted as option for a light weight sustained fire weapon, perhaps a suitable option for Adepts/Engineers.

I mean.. It is the AK-47 of the Mass Effect universe! It's durable, reliable, cheap, and everywhere.

[Rokayt]

tntk252 wrote...

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas for an Incisor buff, Rokayt?

It has a few very dangerous flaws:

Its burst fire: This is the fire mode which gives the player the least control as to when and how they fire their weapon, wasting ammo, and leaving you unable to fire when you need to fire occasionally (Namely, when using rof bonuses, the burst delay is shorter then the burst time, creating gaps in your fire.)

It is also high recoil, which in being coupled with the burst fire causes a VERY large number of shots to be wasted, and it forces one to annoyingly re aquire the target.

However, I would address neither of these things, as both are integral to the feel of the gun.
Rather, the gun simply needs to give enough reward to match the tremendous risk you take using it (OR the cost one undertakes compensating for these flaws.)

[ichyscrachy]

Like what you said about the beth AR. Do you realize that your buffs describe a Turian soldier?

[Rokayt]

ichyscrachy wrote...

Like what you said about the beth AR. Do you realize that your buffs describe a Turian soldier?

Well, the GPR buff is basically using the GPR on the TS, but off the TS.

[CrashLegacy]

tntk252 wrote...

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas for an Incisor buff, Rokayt?

If it was me, I'd be focusing on recoil reduction and lowering the maginication of the scope.  The weapons current scope promotes combat at ranges greater thne the weapon's curst could reliably hit a man sided target while aiming for center mass.   Given its referenced that the weapon is used by police services (whose snipers work at much closer ranges and have more stringent accuracy requirments), the weapons inaccuracy and high magnification seems erroneous.  

[Rokayt]

Imma hunt down the eviscerator reserved slot.

Finish that baby up.

[Kenadian]

Rokayt wrote...

tntk252 wrote...

Just out of curiosity, do you have any ideas for an Incisor buff, Rokayt?

It has a few very dangerous flaws:

Its burst fire: This is the fire mode which gives the player the least control as to when and how they fire their weapon, wasting ammo, and leaving you unable to fire when you need to fire occasionally (Namely, when using rof bonuses, the burst delay is shorter then the burst time, creating gaps in your fire.)

It is also high recoil, which in being coupled with the burst fire causes a VERY large number of shots to be wasted, and it forces one to annoyingly re aquire the target.

However, I would address neither of these things, as both are integral to the feel of the gun.
Rather, the gun simply needs to give enough reward to match the tremendous risk you take using it (OR the cost one undertakes compensating for these flaws.)

I think I've argued with you on this before. Frankly, as it stands, the gun is a joke. It doesn't do what it advertises, never did. Not in ME2 and not in ME3 when they changed the description. If it actually did what it was supposed to originally do, we'd have an awesome sniper. This would require drastically lowering its recoil and increasing its RoF while leaving a minimum refire rate. You know, basically letting you get off 3 shots rapidly in the span of one shot. It would drastically boost its headshot and damage potential without requiring a massive damage buff.