285 réponses à ce sujet

[megabeast37215]

Lord_Sirian wrote...
Read the discussion that went with that list.  It's a full auto weapon that Jay can't outscore me with. Therefore it's bad. 

I call Shenanighans... that thing setup that way would melt faces in the hands of Headshot Hoxtatron... I think you're pullin' my leg.

In fact... I think that would be a pretty sick weapon on the Geth Soldier paired with a Scorpion, I might try it tonight.

[megabeast37215]

Double post = Free Bump

Modifié par megabeast37215, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:49 .

[megabeast37215]

Holy **** I'm ****ing inept.... LOL....

Modifié par megabeast37215, 16 novembre 2012 - 01:49 .

[upinya slayin]

Ashen Earth wrote...

upinya slayin wrote...

our using an example that has no leeway. its a commoon to an UR and one that eveyroene agrees would be way better.

Both weapons fill the niche of a lightweight shotgun. It makes sense to compare them regardless of rarity just like it makes sense to compare the Saber and the Argus. The Talon and the Eviscerator are functionally the same, and appeal to the same classes although one is clearly superior to the other.

upinya slayin wrote...

So if i think the collector SMG is good and I can do good with it, then how can somebody tell me I should think its a bad weapon?

In the end, you're right: It's a matter of opinion. I can't and won't speak for other people, but if I say a weapon is "bad" I support my claim with facts. There is a difference between a person who just says "this weapon is bad and you shouldn't use it because it is bad" and someone who backs up his statements with valid arguments.

I still don't get what you say is a valid argument. you might think a weapon sucks while someone else thinks its good.

I mean i'm not gonna say the collector SMG is a better gun then the harrier. Its not. The harrier is probably the best all around weapon. My personal favorite is the wraith, doens't mean I htink its a better weapon for eevyone. I just love the wraith. Alot of people think the inscisor sucks. I think its a good weapon personally.

[taplonaplo]

Next time come with a screenshot where the only difference is the weapon used. We all know the fury is awesome, but if you want to fuel the thread some more, at least put some effort into it.

The hornet is not bad, deal with it.

Modifié par taplonaplo, 16 novembre 2012 - 02:05 .

[Zjarcal]

upinya slayin wrote...

So if i think the collector SMG is good and I can do good with it, then how can somebody tell me I should think its a bad weapon?

Indeed.

In the end, what really matters for you is your opinion and yours only. If you can do good with a weapon, it's good for you, period. My own standard for saying if a gun is good or not is simply whether or not I feel gimped in anyway when using it. If I don't feel gimped and I feel like I'm doing as good as I could do with something else (or at least comparable), it's good enough for me (that applies to characters too).

There's no real need to convince anyone about it, after all, no matter how much I argue in favor it, plenty of people will think the Wraith is bad... so yeah.

[Rolenka]

I used the Shuriken X quite a bit on my Asari Adept simply to get +200% on cooldowns. I now have other weapons leveled up enough that they can get the job done, but still.

So at least it has a use if you aren't planning on shooting it but the game forces you to take a weapon.

[Seifer006]

Finally someone who understands.

Thank you OP. I like your logic and sense of humor


Krogan Warlord Out

[cronshaw]

Xaijin wrote...
It is entirely possible to perform a baseline check of stat effects combined with average best usage of anything. Fighting game developers and analysts have been doing this for twenty years. Performance can and will be reduced to a rather simple algorithm, and yes, this can also cover utility by checking player damage taken or current enemy state at the same time.

These are the kinds of things experienced players and devs alike do, especially ones from a fighting game background who also get in the trenches on a regular basis.

So I'm all for numbers and stats and the like. But aren't they based on certian assumptions.
DPS for example. What does that assume as far as accuracy? 100%? 75%? 50%?
Because I guarantee not every player is landing every shot. A weapon that has its DPS spread out over more shots will punish an inacurate player less than a wepon that has most of its DPS in only a few shots
You say "average best usage"
But what is that?
where do they get that? 
There is a human element that can't be removed, because humans are creating and playing the game.
I'm not a "everything is just opinon" guy or a relativist by any stretch of the imagination
But I also don't think you can boil "best gun" down to numbers and stats
Not that this is what you are saying or belive, just where i'm coming from
Anyway it is interesting how even fairly inconsequential things can raise pretty consequential issues
though I suppose what I find inconsequential may not be so for people in the gaming industry.

[cronshaw]

Ziegrif wrote...

There's also personal prefrence and the skill of the player to consider.
Due to these 2 variables I decided to just call direct bull**** on anyone calling something good or bad.

I'd agree with the genral tenor of most of the stuff I did not quote, though i do think some guns are objectively better than others. 
As for what I did quote I think that the skill of the player is a variable that is not taken into consideration enough when there are discussions about how "good" a weapon is. Though I'm not sure preference has a place in discussions of weapon efficacy.

[RiouHotaru]

Lord_Sirian wrote...

Here's what would happen in a lobby with decent players:

1. you SS a priority target, someone else using a proper class kills the target before the ridiculously long animation can finish
2. you stagger a target (centurion etc.) and someone else kills it.
3. You go to melee another target, but after one melee someone else headshots it and kills it
4. Staggered target is already dead
5. All the enemies on the other side of the map are already dead too and the wave is over.

Point 1 happens quite a bit, but don't say "proper class skill", you come off as pretentious.  You make it sound like no-one in their right mind would use SS

Point 2 isn't a bad thing.  Do you -have- to score the kill?  Are you a terrible Shadow if you don't outright murder the target in a single blow?

Never seen 3 happen.  Or 4.  Or 5.

Yeah, the Shadow won't top-score unless you ignore her class skills, but she has amazing usefulness.  This is like folks saying Havok Strike is terrible because it's not Biotic Charge.

[Untonic]

Gonna have to scratch HORNET off your list, it's objectively and positively one of the best SMGs in the game.

[RiouHotaru]

Zjarcal wrote...

upinya slayin wrote...

So if i think the collector SMG is good and I can do good with it, then how can somebody tell me I should think its a bad weapon?

Indeed.

In the end, what really matters for you is your opinion and yours only. If you can do good with a weapon, it's good for you, period. My own standard for saying if a gun is good or not is simply whether or not I feel gimped in anyway when using it. If I don't feel gimped and I feel like I'm doing as good as I could do with something else (or at least comparable), it's good enough for me (that applies to characters too).

There's no real need to convince anyone about it, after all, no matter how much I argue in favor it, plenty of people will think the Wraith is bad... so yeah.

Yeah, this.  Same goes with classes too.  I get a bit sick and tired of people getting on my case because I won't use x weapon with y class, etc, etc, like there's some standard I have to meet.

[UKStory135]

modok8 wrote...

Xaijin wrote...
It is entirely possible to perform a baseline check of stat effects combined with average best usage of anything. Fighting game developers and analysts have been doing this for twenty years. Performance can and will be reduced to a rather simple algorithm, and yes, this can also cover utility by checking player damage taken or current enemy state at the same time.

These are the kinds of things experienced players and devs alike do, especially ones from a fighting game background who also get in the trenches on a regular basis.

So I'm all for numbers and stats and the like. But aren't they based on certian assumptions.
DPS for example. What does that assume as far as accuracy? 100%? 75%? 50%?
Because I guarantee not every player is landing every shot. A weapon that has its DPS spread out over more shots will punish an inacurate player less than a wepon that has most of its DPS in only a few shots
You say "average best usage"
But what is that?
where do they get that? 
There is a human element that can't be removed, because humans are creating and playing the game.
I'm not a "everything is just opinon" guy or a relativist by any stretch of the imagination
But I also don't think you can boil "best gun" down to numbers and stats
Not that this is what you are saying or belive, just where i'm coming from
Anyway it is interesting how even fairly inconsequential things can raise pretty consequential issues
though I suppose what I find inconsequential may not be so for people in the gaming industry.

DPS is still useful but it has the limitations you described plus a few others.  One is OSOK ability.  A BW technically has a lower DPS than the Valiant, but the BW can take out three mid-level enemies on gold in one clip and the Valiant can't. Where DPS is most useful is in weapons that have similar utility like the Paladin vs. the Saber or the Scorpion vs. the Falcon.

[Xaijin]

modok8 wrote...

Xaijin wrote...
It is entirely possible to perform a baseline check of stat effects combined with average best usage of anything. Fighting game developers and analysts have been doing this for twenty years. Performance can and will be reduced to a rather simple algorithm, and yes, this can also cover utility by checking player damage taken or current enemy state at the same time.

These are the kinds of things experienced players and devs alike do, especially ones from a fighting game background who also get in the trenches on a regular basis.

So I'm all for numbers and stats and the like. But aren't they based on certian assumptions.
DPS for example. What does that assume as far as accuracy? 100%? 75%? 50%?
Because I guarantee not every player is landing every shot. A weapon that has its DPS spread out over more shots will punish an inacurate player less than a wepon that has most of its DPS in only a few shots
You say "average best usage"
But what is that?
where do they get that? 
There is a human element that can't be removed, because humans are creating and playing the game.
I'm not a "everything is just opinon" guy or a relativist by any stretch of the imagination
But I also don't think you can boil "best gun" down to numbers and stats
Not that this is what you are saying or belive, just where i'm coming from
Anyway it is interesting how even fairly inconsequential things can raise pretty consequential issues
though I suppose what I find inconsequential may not be so for people in the gaming industry.

The DPS on BWs spreadsheet is an assumed value based on what the weapon does, how close you get to that number CONSISTENTLY can and will be averaged into a mean number, which is rather likely to be one of the metrics used by BW to balance things. Whether it's fair or not or consistent (in terms of usage versus raw effectiveness by everyone playing the game)  or not is really kinda immaterial. BW has to make a judgement call somewhere on a weapon's effectiveness, and it's rather likely edge cases on both sides of user effectiveness are chunked out the door in most cases, hence average best use. I've never even intimated people can be removed as people's usage is the metric used to quantify how good a weapon is, but I CAN guarantee you it's boiled down to a numeric equivocation.

Period.

Yes the best gun in the game can be boiled down to stats, because stats are what make that gun best. If a gun does 1000 dps and hits targets with 1000 N and it's clip and mag are 1000 rounds, I can guarandamntee you it's the best gun in the game. BW has gone out of their way to provide a huge range of variables to provide variety, but there is a best gun in the game, and it's NOT a matter of opinion. There's a character with the best powers in the game, and the same applies there too. Utility and damage may be separate entities, but they have to come together somewhere because that's literally BW's combat mechanic in Mass Effect, the synergy of utility under the paradigm and play conditions they set, and the efficiency at which enemies are dead without being able to damage you back sufficiently enough to kill you, ie effectiveness. The only way to go outside said model is to so grossly exaggerate a particular stat that it becomes broken or near broken, like a weapon or power that did 1 point of damage but froze any number of enemies for an hour.

[Sinapus]

I guess my standards on "good" is "I can hurt things with it and I managed to survive the match" instead of points of damage inflicted or whatever. SMGs are backup weapons for my Infiltrators, either way. For when I end up in Glacier or Goddess or the enemies keep getting close.

Shuriken is great, if it's your only class X SMG. I at least managed to get enough points with it to get its SMG Mastery cleared. I stopped trying that with the Katana X. Maybe I'm just better at getting the bursts to hit the target (including some of the rounds hitting the head) than I am with the Katana's blasts.

(I've been trying to use the commons for the weapon mastery things. Avenger was actually doable w/Destroyer or Turian Soldier w/both ap mods. Predator w/the heavy barrel and Asari Adept was... tedious. Shuriken was probably doable only because I armed every caster class I had with it and the points built up. The Mantis is making steady progress. A bit slower than the Widow and Javelin but I'm over halfway through. Katana... isn't working. Neither is the Scimitar for that matter. Bummer.)

I'm keeping my Locust X, with the Geth Plasma SMG X for my Geth characters.

Modifié par Sinapus, 16 novembre 2012 - 05:11 .

[taplonaplo]

Lord_Sirian wrote...

taplonaplo wrote...

Next time come with a screenshot where the only difference is the weapon used. We all know the fury is awesome, but if you want to fuel the thread some more, at least put some effort into it.

The hornet is not bad, deal with it.

 
I don't like the Fury and wasn't using it.  

The hornet is bad. Deal with it.

So i guess just nade spamming drell than? Doesn't change the fact that the screenshot has nothibng to do with the effectiveness of the hornet. May as well just claim how engineers suck coz hey, jay only got 85k less score, and he is the real deal, right? The hornet was suitable to kill enemies 5 months ago, it still is. The addition of retardedly op **** like the harrier or grenade gear that trivializes everything won't change that.

I still don't know why i bother to reply to obvious bait posts...<_<