66 réponses à ce sujet

[Binary_Helix 1]

Kacynski wrote...

But as I love the Revenant out of sentimentality I will give it a second try and see which mods could make it work.

It''s just not the same experience anymore. Nearly all weapons from ME2 play differently now and mostly for the worse.

Revenant illustrates this perfectly. An elite tier gun in ME2 is now barely usable. Longer reload speed, smaller clip size, lower reserve ammo, lower RoF, reduced accuracy, less damage, AND the new mechanics like weight and kickback introduced. Not to nitpick but the guns sound different as well. It's fitting that the ME3 Revenant doesn't sound anything like the original because the only thing they have in common is the name. ME3 nerfed weapons in favor of power classes and it's a shame.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 12:18 .

[sharkboy421]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Kacynski wrote...

But as I love the Revenant out of sentimentality I will give it a second try and see which mods could make it work.

It''s just not the same experience anymore. Nearly all weapons from ME2 play differently now and mostly for the worse.

Revenant illustrates this perfectly. An elite tier gun in ME2 is now barely usable. Longer reload speed, smaller clip size, lower reserve ammo, lower RoF, reduced accuracy, less damage, AND the new mechanics like weight and kickback introduced. Not to nitpick but the guns sound different as well. It's fitting that the ME3 Revenant doesn't sound anything like the original because the only thing they have in common is the name. ME3 nerfed weapons in favor of power classes and it's a shame.

It has about the same recoil as it did in 2.  Spare ammo at rank X is the same, although they did nerf the base clip size (80  down to 60).  Damage wise. . .I'm not really sure.  The biggest issue with the Rev currently is its horrid base accuracy.  The recoil you can learn to compensate on your own, or use a stability mod and it becoms a non-issue.  Ammo is really not an issue in ME3 and it makes sense as you rank it up it gains something.

But the accuracy.  Good god the accuracy blows something awful.  Seriously it needs a buff.  However the gun is far from unusable.  Once I get it in ME3 it becomes my primary weapon (on soldier anyway) and I rarely swap it out.  It does lay down a lot of fire and explosive burst inferno ammo turns it into a fantastic AOE damage weapon.  It is still a fantastic weapon once you understand how it has changed, but yes it is no where near as strong as it was in ME2.  The Typhoon is kinda like the ME2 Rev though. 

[Binary_Helix 1]

RedCaesar97 wrote...



1) Calling the Soldier the worst class in the game is like calling someone the world's poorest billionaire. The Soldier has a lot of tools that can you can use to power your way through the game.

Look no further than the MP. That's where you see how the classes really perform without being able to pause the game or control squadmates. Soldier falls apart completely as do the assault rifles. That's why the soldier class and ARs have been buffed more so than any other class/weapon combo. Surprise suprise they're also weak in the SP but MP is much harder.

RedCaesar97 wrote...

I disagree because I do not think that is the reason. I think the reason is that the Soldier is the only class in the game that--excluding bonus powers--is the only class that actually needs to shoot guns to beat the game. All other classes can get by using just powers.

ME3 is a power centric game. Shooting matters less and power spam matters more. This would be balanced if say the other classes weren't given unlimited sprint (extra sprint was a soldier ability) plus access to any weapon they wanted (another lost soldier exclusive). So as weak as soldier is in my view the other classes simply gained too many new advantages.

RedCaesar97 wrote...

The weight system as it is currently implemented is garbage in my opinion. On paper it has potential, in practice it completely falls apart. There are a few reasons for this:
 - Soldier lacks a really good weight capacity
 - The stupid weapon upgrade system is stupid. You cannot upgrade weapons past level V on a first playthrough, and some weapons are utterly useless at level 1 (hello 8-shot Claymore I). 

I think Curunen's weapon encumbrance idea was better. Simply put, all weapons had an encumbrance value, for example, the Shuriken would have an encumbrance of 1 while the Claymore would have an encumbrance of 4. Each class had a maximum weapon encumbrance they could carry, with the Soldier being able to carry the most and the Adept/Engineer the least. 

As for the weight system crippling the Soldier's performance and enjoyability? If you enjoyed switching weapons a lot then sure, it is terrible. But I would ask the question, why are you using more than 2 weapons? Even without DLC weapons and mods, 3 or more weapons is overkill.

I'd just like to go back to what worked so well in the first two games ME2 in particular. Change for the sake of change = bad.

RedCaesar97 wrote...Cannot agree more. I think that was a really interesting and fun mechanic. And yet some weapons--even non-DLC weapons--do have damage modifiers. It is completely nonsensical.

My suspicion is it was social engineering to get players away from what they liked and into using less popular weapons.

RedCaesar97 wrote...

As for sniping, the Soldier is not worse than the Infiltrator, just different. All single-shot rifles suffer from the shieldgate mechanic on Insanity, which hits all classes equally. The Infiltrator gains natural time dilation and a damage bonus from cloak. The Soldier has time dilation in Adrenaline Rush and Adrenaline Rush will instantly reload your weapon, so you can effectively two-shot with the single-shot sniper rifles to kill elite enemies. You also have time dilation mods for sniper rifles.

Soldier vs infiltrator was a legimate debate in regards to who was the best sniper in ME2. It's not even close anymore. Infiltrator wins hands down. Cloak plus energy drain is both offensive and defensive. Cloak also enbales you to set up shots perfectly and move across the battlefield unharmed. There is a reason the MP side of the game nerfed this class the most.

RedCaesar97 wrote...

Please clarify "out of loyalty"? I may need some background on that statement. Did you only ever play Soldier throughout the series? did you play all classes and the Soldier happened to be your favority both times?

The issue with "out of loyalty" is that it implies you MUST play and like the Soldier, which seems kind of dumb. I have played all classes in all three games (except Adept in ME3 yet). My most-favorite and least-favorite classes have changed throughout the series. I hated the Engineer in ME1, loved it in ME2. Hated the Sentinel in both games. Really liked the Soldier in ME1 for some reason, liked it in ME2 but thought it was a bit bland at times.

The classes and mechanics have changed throughout the series; no idea why "class loyalty" should enter into the equation. But then like I said earllier, I think you need to explain that to me so I understand it better.

Continuity is important for some players and unlike your examples most of the other classes got better as the trilogy went on. For some reason soldier didn't even take a single step forward in ME3 nstead he went several steps backward in my view.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:39 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

sharkboy421 wrote...

It has about the same recoil as it did in 2.  Spare ammo at rank X is the same, although they did nerf the base clip size (80  down to 60).  Damage wise. . .I'm not really sure.  The biggest issue with the Rev currently is its horrid base accuracy.  The recoil you can learn to compensate on your own, or use a stability mod and it becoms a non-issue.  Ammo is really not an issue in ME3 and it makes sense as you rank it up it gains something.

But the accuracy.  Good god the accuracy blows something awful.  Seriously it needs a buff.  However the gun is far from unusable.  Once I get it in ME3 it becomes my primary weapon (on soldier anyway) and I rarely swap it out.  It does lay down a lot of fire and explosive burst inferno ammo turns it into a fantastic AOE damage weapon.  It is still a fantastic weapon once you understand how it has changed, but yes it is no where near as strong as it was in ME2.  The Typhoon is kinda like the ME2 Rev though. 

I'm not a fan of the rank  or mod system. They make guns weak relative to powers which do not have to be leveled up ten times or require mods to fix their weaknesses. The Revenant's stats are all worse in ME3. Without damage modifiers it automatically does lower damage than in ME2 but it's performance in ME3 is also worse. From the Mass Effect wiki itself

"The weapon functions in a similar manner as it did in Mass Effect 2, but it carries 20 fewer rounds per magazine, reloads slower, has substantially reduced accuracy and has even harsher recoil." Plus it's massive weight and the pay off is low.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/M-76_Revenant

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:28 .

[Nightmare137]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

sharkboy421 wrote...

It has about the same recoil as it did in 2.  Spare ammo at rank X is the same, although they did nerf the base clip size (80  down to 60).  Damage wise. . .I'm not really sure.  The biggest issue with the Rev currently is its horrid base accuracy.  The recoil you can learn to compensate on your own, or use a stability mod and it becoms a non-issue.  Ammo is really not an issue in ME3 and it makes sense as you rank it up it gains something.

But the accuracy.  Good god the accuracy blows something awful.  Seriously it needs a buff.  However the gun is far from unusable.  Once I get it in ME3 it becomes my primary weapon (on soldier anyway) and I rarely swap it out.  It does lay down a lot of fire and explosive burst inferno ammo turns it into a fantastic AOE damage weapon.  It is still a fantastic weapon once you understand how it has changed, but yes it is no where near as strong as it was in ME2.  The Typhoon is kinda like the ME2 Rev though. 

I'm not a fan of the rank  or mod system. They make guns weak relative to powers which do not have to be leveled up ten times or require mods to fix their weaknesses. The Revenant's stats are all worse in ME3. Without damage modifiers it autmoatically does lower damage than in ME2 but it's performance in ME3 is also worse. From the Mass Effect wiki itself

"The weapon functions in a similar manner as it did in Mass Effect 2, but it carries 20 fewer rounds per magazine, reloads slower, has substantially reduced accuracy and has even harsher recoil." Plus it's massive weight and the pay off is low.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/M-76_Revenant

While true that all those stats are lower it does almost 4x the amount of damage per round than it did in ME2. I'm not saying the gun is great but I am saying the gun didnt 'just' get nerfed. You should also keep in mind that ME2 didnt have a weapon mod system which are stats you could factor in as well into the ME3 revenant.

With a stability mod you can render the stability an obsolete nerf. With the Magazine mod you get an additional 48 rounds added to the main clip which is actually higher than 2 rendering it obsolete as well. You can pick and choose and end up with better stats in any of these area which are not factors which were in ME2.

Modifié par Nightmare137, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:33 .

[capn233]

I think we need to basically segregate discussion between SP and MP because what you can generalize for one, you cannot for the other.

In the current state of MP, Human Soldier is one of the better classes, and classes that have the best weapon bonuses or debuffs are probably the top tier as far as the "metagame" goes. So think Ghost, GI, Valkyrie, etc. I agree that at release Human Soldier left a lot to be desired, and so was buffed fairly substantially. As were several of the weapons we are complaining about.

I agree that in many ways vanilla soldier is the weakest class in SP, but then again Red makes a good point in that this is akin to saying he is the poorest billionaire. He is more than capable of rolling through the campaign, even if other classes role it harder.

I disagree that Soldier wasn't a good tank in ME2. In ME1 he was the best tank, and second best was arguably Infiltrator or Sentinel. In ME2 Soldier was the still a good tank, although Sentinel was easily the best. You could make a decent case that Vanguard was as good or better tank than Soldier by end game, but he didn't have the power to deal with bosses as easily either.

ME3 Soldier does not really have a clearly defined role, which is the biggest problem. Not the best tank (or even close really), not really the weapon master, not really anything except closest to pure shooter. However, he does have the advantage of the 2 top ammo powers, and arguably the 3rd. He gets a decent damage bonus, and decent grenades.

I do think Adrenaline Rush was a little overnerfed, and that was for a variety of reasons most likely. There was the mistaken belief by many that Soldier was the most powerful class in ME2 and OP, which is somewhat amusing honestly. There was also the belief that casters needed so much help since they weren't viable in ME2, which is laughable. And they decided they needed more powers and more weapons for ME3, and to do that the stripped things out of some of the returning abilities so they could get new ones. See Marksman, which is really just a missing element from Adrenaline Rush (accuracy) plus a substitute (rate of fire instead of time dilation).

Soldier is the most tied to weapons in this game, and in a new character or import you are stuck with low level weapons that are porky and have few shots. If you fixed the weapon balance you would go a long way towards improving soldier, without even touching the Soldier itself. Make the power to weight somewhat consistent throughout the weapons, and make meaningful distinctions through the classes.

If you wanted to fix Soldier by manipulating the character, there are only a few things that need to be changed. He should have more base weight capacity. He should be able to have more capacity than an infiltrator without going all in on capacity in passive. That is just mind boggling that they got this wrong. Adrenaline Rush should grant base damage protection of perhaps 25%, and Hardening should grant an additional 50% (keep in mind that I am using game numbers, and effective DR is actually a bit less than the number suggests...). He should have probably gotten either a passive storm bonus from Combat Mastery. And last but not least, they should have retained the difference in base health and shields in between classes. Soldier should have the highest base health (which I think some would debate the merit of, but it does matter with tiered health and is amplified if he had Damage Resistance...).

[brad2240]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

The weight system also crippled the soldier's performance and enjoyability.

Not for me it didn't. I rarely, if ever, used more than 2 guns in any given mission in either ME1 or ME2.  Since the ME3 soldier can easily carry 2 good guns I wasn't bothered by the weight system at all. On top of that, ME3 doesn't support carrying multiple weapons, since (most) damage modifiers were removed and ammo is everywhere.

The removal of ME2 weapon damage modifiers was the nail in the coffin for a lot of guns.

Agreed.
 

Unless you have DLC weapons there really isn't any point to play soldier when every other class can do what he does and often better.

With this I disagree. The point to play any class is because you enjoy it. And whay he does is make weapons better, especially automatic weapons, with his passives and ammos. No other class can match him in that. 

If you prefer tanking sentinel with tech armor plus defense matrix/fortification enables you to carry all the guns plus have a whopping 70% damage resistance.

Fortification + ARush specced for damage resistance gives 55% DR, which is fairly tanky IMO. Plus it has a much higher damage output than that sentinel. The changes to fire explosions only adds to that. And it's not tied to specific squadmates to keep the damage rolling, as that sentinel is.

The only reason to play soldier is out of class loyalty.

No, the only reason to play it is out of enjoyment. I've completed the game with all classes but I keep coming back to soldier the most. Guns in ME3 are fun for me. If they're not fun for you, this is not the class you should be playing. There's different classes for a reason.

[sharkboy421]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

I'm not a fan of the rank  or mod system. They make guns weak relative to powers which do not have to be leveled up ten times or require mods to fix their weaknesses. The Revenant's stats are all worse in ME3. Without damage modifiers it automatically does lower damage than in ME2 but it's performance in ME3 is also worse. From the Mass Effect wiki itself

"The weapon functions in a similar manner as it did in Mass Effect 2, but it carries 20 fewer rounds per magazine, reloads slower, has substantially reduced accuracy and has even harsher recoil." Plus it's massive weight and the pay off is low.

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/M-76_Revenant

The only issue I have with the rank system is you cannot get to rank X in a new game, you have to go to NG+.  Who ever thought that was a good idea needs to be slapped.  And idk, did they pull the numbers for the recoil out of the coalesced to compare?  Because in my personal experience one does not feel better or worse.  Accuracy I will concede.

And damage I find it hard to compare as the games seem to use a different damage system.  At least numbers wise, the ME3 guns are like 5 and 6 times as higher than ME2, so that seems a little weird.  Slower recoil is easy to negate with reload cancel so its meh. 

And its weight is not that bad.  But I consider that more a failing of the weight system than gun itself.  But still, I agree the Rev lost its ME2 glory in 3.  However it is far from useless. 

[capn233]

Nightmare137 wrote...

While true that all those stats are lower it does almost 4x the amount of damage per round than it did in ME2. I'm not saying the gun is great but I am saying the gun didnt 'just' get nerfed. You should also keep in mind that ME2 didnt have a weapon mod system which are stats you could factor in as well into the ME3 revenant.

With a stability mod you can render the stability an obsolete nerf. With the Magazine mod you get an additional 48 rounds added to the main clip which is actually higher than 2 rendering it obsolete as well. You can pick and choose and end up with better stats in any of these area which are not factors which were in ME2.

Apples and oranges.  You are not adjusting for the differences in enemy health numbers in between the two games.  I did a post in the MP forum a good while back comparing the ME2 weapons in between games assuming that the Carnifex was the gold standard.  Many weapons did less damage relative to their ME2 counterparts, including the Revenant.  One noteable exception was the Avenger, which did slightly more adjusted damage per shot, but has a much lower rate of fire than in ME2.

Additionally, I think running either of those two mods significantly gimps your Revenant for a couple of reasons.  The first issue is that the Revenant is poor against armor without the piercing mod (or ammo power) because of lackluster damage per shot and no armor multiplier.  It had a 1.4 multiplier vs armor in ME2 and was pretty solid. Secondly, since the accuracy is total crap, you get more mileage out of the AR Scope and the 15% bonus accuracy, IMO.  In any event, claiming that by just adding stability and mag mod returns the Revi to its ME2 glory is an overstatement.

Modifié par capn233, 25 novembre 2012 - 01:47 .

[Nightmare137]

capn233 wrote...

Nightmare137 wrote...

While true that all those stats are lower it does almost 4x the amount of damage per round than it did in ME2. I'm not saying the gun is great but I am saying the gun didnt 'just' get nerfed. You should also keep in mind that ME2 didnt have a weapon mod system which are stats you could factor in as well into the ME3 revenant.

With a stability mod you can render the stability an obsolete nerf. With the Magazine mod you get an additional 48 rounds added to the main clip which is actually higher than 2 rendering it obsolete as well. You can pick and choose and end up with better stats in any of these area which are not factors which were in ME2.

Apples and oranges.  You are not adjusting for the differences in enemy health numbers in between the two games.  I did a post in the MP forum a good while back comparing the ME2 weapons in between games assuming that the Carnifex was the gold standard.  Many weapons did less damage relative to their ME2 counterparts, including the Revenant.  One noteable exception was the Avenger, which did slightly more adjusted damage per shot, but has a much lower rate of fire than in ME2.

Additionally, I think running either of those two mods significantly gimps your Revenant for a couple of reasons.  The first issue is that the Revenant is poor against armor without the piercing mod (or ammo power) because of lackluster damage per shot and no armor multiplier.  It had a 1.4 multiplier vs armor in ME2 and was pretty solid. Secondly, since the accuracy is total crap, you get more mileage out of the AR Scope and the 15% bonus accuracy, IMO.  In any event, claiming that by just adding stability and mag mod returns the Revi to its ME2 glory is an overstatement.

Overlook my last statement why dont you. I said to 'pick and choose'  to make up for lacking areas not 'You must use the stability and magazine mod'. My point was you get stats from Mods in ME3 which must be factored in when comparing such a gun to ME2 where they didnt have such a game mechanic.

Another point you overlooked was I wasnt saying it was a great gun, infact I also think it could use a little help,  so dont go around saying I claimed anything about it being the same. It was all me simply saying a lot of people dont seem to factor a value in that actually applies, even if it may or may not add a lot it does add something.

So for instance if you take the Penetration mod you can do great against armor and if you know how to compensate for stability than you dont need that one. Also ammo is a non-issue in this game with how many mags are just sitting around all over the place, especially with how much it does have.

You also forget that although enemy stats have gone up (which I didnt forget), so too have the players passive % bonus towards weapons. The ammo powers are also stronger in ME3 than compared to ME2 making every shot even more effective.

Enemies in ME2 had a tendency to have 2-3 layers of defense on top of the values back than for everything including weapons being lower where as in 3 they can only have a maximum of 2 so the values can come closer than you think. They also tended to pack more overall enemies into 2 compared to ME3 maps which too also must be applied around how well a gun should perform.

Modifié par Nightmare137, 25 novembre 2012 - 02:24 .

[Binary_Helix 1]

brad2240 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

The weight system also crippled the soldier's performance and enjoyability.

Not for me it didn't. I rarely, if ever, used more than 2 guns in any given mission in either ME1 or ME2. 

A widely held position that I never really grasped. Tactically soldier had a weapon for every situation even if he could make do with just one. That's a true weapon master. The first link demonstrates my play style. The second explains it conceptually.

www.youtube.com/watch

www.youtube.com/watch

brad2240 wrote...With this I disagree. The point to play any class is because you enjoy it. And whay he does is make weapons better, especially automatic weapons, with his passives and ammos. No other class can match him in that. 

That's another issue I have with ME3. The ammo powers are less important now with some being nerfed (like the squad variants). Oddly enough though warp ammo ( a caster ammo power) remains strong even better than in ME2. Strange...

brad2240 wrote...

No, the only reason to play it is out of enjoyment. I've completed the game with all classes but I keep coming back to soldier the most. Guns in ME3 are fun for me. If they're not fun for you, this is not the class you should be playing. There's different classes for a reason.

Is this what people told casters in ME2 when they complained (erroneously I might add) about how underpowered they were? The entire gameplay system from ME2 was scrapped and rewritten in their image for ME3. Lobbying here apparently matters

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 02:43 .

[Drayce333]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

That's another issue I have with ME3. The ammo powers are less important now with some being nerfed (like the squad variants). Oddly enough though warp ammo ( a caster ammo power) remains strong even better than in ME2. Strange...

Lol wat.

Proof this guy has no idea what he is talking about. Its just defensive rambling at this point.

Modifié par Drayce333, 25 novembre 2012 - 02:36 .

[capn233]

Nightmare137 wrote...

Overlook my last statement why dont you. I said to 'pick and choose'  to make up for lacking areas not 'You must use the stability and magazine mod'. My point was you get stats from Mods in ME3 which must be factored in when comparing such a gun to ME2 where they didnt have such a game mechanic.

Didn't overlook that.  You can't say that mods make up the difference when you would need 4 mods to make up the difference and can only run 2.

Another point you overlooked was I wasnt saying it was a great gun, infact I also think it could use a little help,  so dont go around saying I claimed anything about it being the same. It was all me simply saying a lot of people dont seem to factor a value in that actually applies, even if it may or may not add a lot it does add something.

I again didn't overlook anything, you are talking about how you can compensate for the changes with mods, which is not completely true, and that somehow it does 4x the damage as in ME2, which relatively speaking is certainly not the case.

So for instance if you take the Penetration mod you can do great against armor and if you know how to compensate for stability than you dont need that one. Also ammo is a non-issue in this game with how many mags are just sitting around all over the place, especially with how much it does have.

You still have a penalty vs armor, even with piercing.  It isn't the same has having a bonus vs armor.  Spare ammo is not anything I am concerned with, since the example above was the magazine mod.  That affects sustained DPS and time between reloads and has little to do with spare clips laying around.

You also forget that although enemy stats have gone up (which I didnt forget), so too have the players passive % bonus towards weapons. The ammo powers are also stronger in ME3 than compared to ME2 making every shot even more effective.

It is an odd statement to both claim the Revenant is 4x stronger in ME3 than ME2 if you accounted for the difference in enemy health.  Ammo powers only help you if you indeed have them on Shepard, and I fail to see how that has to do with weapon balance unless you think the balance theory should be robbing Peter to pay Paul.  And in actuality I am not sure that the difference in ammo powers makes a whole lot of difference outside of Incendiary Explosive Burst, which probably will net noticeably more damage compared with Inferno.  Cryo will not overall kill faster than in ME2 given that there are no units that die simply from freezing this time around.  Disruptor has a token bonus to organic health this time around... Warp had a decent bonus before, as did AP.

Enemies in ME2 had a tendency to have 2-3 layers of defense on top of the values back than for everything including weapons being lower where as in 3 they can only have a maximum of 2 so the values can come closer than you think. They also tended to pack more overall enemies into 2 compared to ME3 maps which too also must be applied around how well a gun should perform.

You are losing me here.  Certainly in ME2 Insanity every enemy had protections.  But the 3 layered protected enemies were few and far between, not unlike an Atlas or Banshee in ME3.  I don't see how the enemies have more relative hp just because they had more defense layers... layers which weapons nearly all had some sort of multiplier against.  I would be interested to see time to kill comparisons between a Cerberus Assault Trooper and a Blue Suns basic though.

Number of enemies is a map design issue, and is not relevant to weapon balance.

[Binary_Helix 1]

Drayce333 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

That's another issue I have with ME3. The ammo powers are less important now with some being nerfed (like the squad variants). Oddly enough though warp ammo ( a caster ammo power) remains strong even better than in ME2. Strange...

Lol wat.

Proof this guy has no idea what he is talking about. Its just defensive rambling at this point.

Idiot.

Take a look at the stats from ME2 incendiary ammo vs ME3 incendiary ammo. The ME2 version is stronger. The squad variant which takes no penalty in ME2  also has a 50% reduction in effectiveness in ME3. The only saving grace here is the explosive burst perk but that comes much later in the ammo power's evolution but in ME2 you get the equaivalent of that sooner.

• Rank 1
  
• Recharge Time: 1.50 seconds
• Duration: Lasts until overridden by another ammo power
• Fire Damage: 20.00% of weapon damage over 3.00 seconds

• Rank 2
  
• Recharge Time: 1.50 seconds
• Duration: Lasts until overridden by another ammo power
• Fire Damage: 30.00% of weapon damage over 3.00 seconds

• Rank 3
  
• Recharge Time: 1.50 seconds
• Duration: Lasts until overridden by another ammo power
• Fire Damage: 40.00% of weapon damage over 3.00 seconds

Mass Effect 3 %3D%3DEdit
Power Ranks %3D%3DEdit
Rank 1: Incendiary Ammo %3D%3DEdit
Shoot and your enemies will burst into flames.
More weapon damage.
Weakens Armor.
Chance to make an enemy panic

• Weapon Damage Bonus: +10.50%
• Armor Damage Bonus: +10.50%

Rank 2: Panic %3D%3DEdit
Improves the odds of panicking an enemy by 15%




Rank 3: Damage %3D%3DEdit
Increases health and armor damage bonuses by 4%

• Weapon Damage Bonus: +14.50%
• Armor Damage Bonus: +14.50%

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Incendiary_Ammo

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 03:47 .

[Nightmare137]

@ Capnn233

• Look at your statement to my first quote than look at my second quote. You just did overlook again. I didnt say it made up the different, you just must factor in what a lot of people tend to not do.
• I wasnt claiming the revenant in ME3 was 4x as strong, I stated it did almost 4 times the amount of damage per shot compared to the ME2 stats since we were all comparing stats, that is all. Revenant in ME2 = 21.3 damage per round, Revenant in ME3 = 79.5 damage per round. All I was stating there was the damage per round wasnt nerfed, just rounded to the proper value for the increased stats on enemies.
• This whole thread and the revenant topic on it is about the SP Soldier Shepard using it so why wouldnt this whole thing be factored around that?
• Ammo powers are stronger in ME3. The explosion on incendiary is one thing but another thing, one of many things apparently, that's stronger about them all is they all can set off explosions that were not available in ME2 (Fire,cryo, tech) & may have addition functions. ME2 Disruptor couldnt damage health but ME3 could and all ME3 ammos have higher % bonuses to account for the different in enemy stats.
• A factor that weapons in SP are balanced around is how they can handle any given map and the number of enemies on it so yes the enemy count is a factor.

[Nightmare137]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

Drayce333 wrote...

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

That's another issue I have with ME3. The ammo powers are less important now with some being nerfed (like the squad variants). Oddly enough though warp ammo ( a caster ammo power) remains strong even better than in ME2. Strange...

Lol wat.

Proof this guy has no idea what he is talking about. Its just defensive rambling at this point.

Idiot.

Take a look at the stats from ME2 incendiary ammo vs ME3 incendiary ammo. The ME2 version is stronger. The squad variant which takes no penalty in ME2  also has a 50 reduction in effectiveness in ME3. The only saving grace here is the explosive burst perk but that comes much later in the ammo power's evolution but in ME2 you get the equaivalent of that sooner.

• Rank 1
  
• Recharge Time: 1.50 seconds
• Duration: Lasts until overridden by another ammo power
• Fire Damage: 20.00% of weapon damage over 3.00 seconds

• Rank 2
  
• Recharge Time: 1.50 seconds
• Duration: Lasts until overridden by another ammo power
• Fire Damage: 30.00% of weapon damage over 3.00 seconds

• Rank 3
  
• Recharge Time: 1.50 seconds
• Duration: Lasts until overridden by another ammo power
• Fire Damage: 40.00% of weapon damage over 3.00 seconds

Mass Effect 3 %3D%3DEdit
Power Ranks %3D%3DEdit
Rank 1: Incendiary Ammo %3D%3DEdit
Shoot and your enemies will burst into flames.
More weapon damage.
Weakens Armor.
Chance to make an enemy panic

• Weapon Damage Bonus: +10.50%
• Armor Damage Bonus: +10.50%

Rank 2: Panic %3D%3DEdit
Improves the odds of panicking an enemy by 15%




Rank 3: Damage %3D%3DEdit
Increases health and armor damage bonuses by 4%

• Weapon Damage Bonus: +14.50%
  Armor Damage Bonus: +14.50%

masseffect.wikia.com/wiki/Incendiary_Ammo

Please keep this civil, we dont need another romance forum.

Also when comparing something you cant just compare part of one to the whole of the other. Yes you can get the ME2 incendiary maxed out sooner but sooner does not mean better. Just because the % in 2 on incendiary is higher it doesnt make it better. That higher percentages actually take a bit longer to apply. On top of that last fact the ME3 variant can set off fire explosions for additional damage which cannot happen in ME2. ME2 ammo powers also dont grant headshot/ammo capacity bonuses.

[Binary_Helix 1]

You can't view the differences in ammo powers in isolation either. It's all part of a trend to favor powers/casting over shooting/guns. Interestingly warp ammo (a caster ammo) does significantly more damage than incendiary at most levels (unlike in ME2) and in my view is more useful than incendiary now given that one ammo power can damage so many defenses

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 04:11 .

[Nightmare137]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

You can't view the differences in ammo powers in isolation either. It's all part of a trend to favor powers and casting over shooting and guns. Interestingly warp ammo (a caster ammo power) does significantly more damage than incendiary at most levels and in my view is more useful than what the soldier has given that one ammo power can damage so many defenses

While warp may have higher bonuses at lower levels I go back to the fact that it cannot set off explosions and each have CC elementals & stronger bonuses in what given areas they do have. The explosions alone make all the difference and are very easy to set off with any squadmate if not yourself no matter the level of your ammo.

Warp rounds = more damage to health, armor, barriers as well as bioticly primed targets on top of reducing enemy armor for you and allies.

Cryo ammo = freeze/slow enemies (CC, different intended functionality), reduce enemy armor reduction for you and allies, Increase damage taken period regardless of health, armor, shields,barriers & primes cryo explosions which is AoE damage and Aoe CC.

Incendiary ammo = Bonus damage to health and armor only and panics (CC) targets in their health state. Explosive evolution adds a lot of damage, particuarly to high RoF weapons and can be shared through the squad evo. The explosive evolution does do damage to barriers and shields. Primes Fire explosions for more AoE damage.

Disruptor Ammo = Damages health by a little. Damages barriers and shields by a lot. Can stun (CC) any enemy. Primes tech bursts for Aoe Damage.

Modifié par Nightmare137, 25 novembre 2012 - 04:22 .

[capn233]

Nightmare137 wrote...

@ Capnn233
...

1. I don't know what I am supposedly overlooking.  I can't argue that nobody has every forgotten to factor in mods, but even with the mods you can't get it back to the same relative strength, IMO.

2. Well I am saying that the stats are apples and oranges because enemy HP is different and if you accounted for that fine.  At the end of the day I think the weapon is weaker relative to enemy HP in this game, regardless of the actual number of layers.  The caveat is that the headshot damage bonus is higher in ME3 so in certain circumstances you might have an advantage, but on balance many of the ME2 weapons are still a step back in damage, accuracy, or both.

3. I can't respond to this point since I am not surewhat it actually refers to. My third comment was about the piercing mod and the magazine capacity :shrug:  Mods are available and can help the weapons, but as I said, you would need 4 mods (AR Scope, Stability Damper, Magazine Capacity, AR Piercing) to buff the Revi to more akin to ME2 effectiveness.

4. Assuming that ammo powers are stronger, which I think is partially true, it is an odd way to balance the weapons considering that some classes do not even get any ammo powers.  Soldier gets the top ammo powers, as in ME2, but the ammo powers don't help offset the fact that many weapons, including Revenant, are much less accurate in this game and as such getting back to ME2 levels of damage with an ammo power doesn't quite make the weapons as effective.  Combos are a nice perk, but using weapons to set up combos for the bulk of "weapon damage" is a bad design decision, IMO.

5. Again, I don't think we should compare weapons based on time to complete the levels relative to ME2.  Essentially all the ME3 missions have less combat and more dialogue.  Maybe with the exception of side missions (which are a strange horde hybrid).  Time to kill units is a better comparison, especially since biotic and tech powers seem to have taken a huge leap forward in damage for this game (combos scaling with difficulty / enemy health) while weapons do not.

Modifié par capn233, 25 novembre 2012 - 04:29 .

[brad2240]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

A widely held position that I never really grasped. Tactically soldier had a weapon for every situation even if he could make do with just one.

I understand that some people play like that, it was just never my style. In ME1 I used mainly an assault rifle, with a pistol or shotgun situationaly. In ME2, I really wasn't a fan of the shotguns and I found that I had to go out of my way to use them and was never pleased with the results. By far the most fun load out for me was the Rev and a Viper. Those two cover all situations.

That's another issue I have with ME3. The ammo powers are less important now with some being nerfed (like the squad variants).

I don't believe the ammo powers to be less important at all. They're still central to the soldier's gameplay, IMO, as they were in ME2. It sucks about the squad variants but I can't say it ever really hampered my enjoyment.

Is this what people told casters in ME2 when they complained (erroneously I might add) about how underpowered they were?

I have no idea what those people were told. But this is what I would have told them, yes. If a class is not to your liking, find one that is. You should be having fun when you play the game.

But, IMO, the soldier is not underpowered in ME3 just like those casters were not underpowered in ME2. Soldiers can complete the game easily, and only if they could not would I call it "underpowered." Whether another class can do it faster is irrelevant to me.

[Binary_Helix 1]

brad2240 wrote...


I have no idea what those people were told. But this is what I would have told them, yes. If a class is not to your liking, find one that is. You should be having fun when you play the game.

What's bizarre here is that I have to play another class (tank sentinel) just to get a more authentic soldier experience.

social.bioware.com/forum/1/topic/347/index/13799321/1

brad2240 wrote...But, IMO, the soldier is not underpowered in ME3 just like those casters were not underpowered in ME2. Soldiers can complete the game easily, and only if they could not would I call it "underpowered." Whether another class can do it faster is irrelevant to me.

My demands aren't even that extreme. Simply go back to the class balance presented in the first two games that's all.

Modifié par Binary_Helix 1, 25 novembre 2012 - 05:46 .

[brad2240]

Binary_Helix 1 wrote...

What's bizarre here is that I have to play another class (tank sentinel) just to get a more authentic soldier experience.

I guess we just differ on what makes a soldier. For me it was never about having the most guns, but being the best with them. When I played the tank sentinel like that I didn't feel like a soldier at all, just a gimped sentinel who was ignoring over half of what the class is so I can carry around a lot of crap on my back. Like I said previously about ME2, I was forcing myself to use the weapons just to justify carrying them. Damage output was mediocre with weapons alone, and setting up combos with Liara just pulled it farther away from what I want out of a weapons-based class. 

But if you found that to give you what you want out of the game, hey, I'm happy for you. That's why there's six different classes. 

[capn233]

Tank Sentinel feels sort of like an ME1 Vanguard really.

[Drayce333]

capn233 wrote...

Tank Sentinel feels sort of like an ME1 Vanguard really.

There is no replacement for the OPness that was ME1 Lift.

[brad2240]

capn233 wrote...

Tank Sentinel feels sort of like an ME1 Vanguard really.

If you carry a light loadout so your powers are usable, maybe a little. Carrying 4 or 5 guns and only one usable active power, I didn't feel like the ME1 Vanguard at all.

Adept with Barrier reminded me the most of my Vanguard.