37 réponses à ce sujet

[Binary_Helix 1]

I'm aware they're handcanons and not common pistols in the modern sense but I feel like only ME2 balanced them right.

[Iclonic]

Video games always make pistols stronger than higher powered rifles.

If this were reality, the M-8 Avenger would be no more powerful than a Vindicator, a Revenant, and so on. (And all of them would retain the scopes they had in ME2 & ME1. Now the M-8 Avenger is without any form of aim-sights, which now makes it look ridiculous, unless you put a scope on it.)

The pistols would be much, much weaker (And only used as a last resort in the event of a jam)

SMG's wouldn't be held like a sidearm as they are displayed in the game (I don't why they make them hold them like that, You even see the guns utilizing a forward hand grip!) Topping that, they should have wireframe stocks.

Shotguns should also have stocks. The recoil would be too immense for people's hands (Except Krogan of course). A couple shots and the webbing between your pointer and thumb would be hurting like hell!

Sniper RIfles. They're perfect where they are.

Eh, I've dissected it too much. But I understand why Games do it. If they didn't nobody would ever use pistols.

[ZombieGambit]

BioWare really screwed up the real world analogs of the pistols. The Carnifex and Paladin are supposed to be like large caliber revolvers and the Predator and Phalanx are supposed to be like semi-automatic pistols, but since they all behave like semi-autos it's kind of a moot point.

Another thing is that in Mass Effect pistols can be used as primary weapons, not sidearms like most other shooters, which means that they have to be powerful to rival shotguns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles. Submachine Guns are the sidearms of the Mass Effect universe and it makes no freaking sense.

BioWare should:
Make all assault rifles, except the Harrier and Typhoon, do more damage
Make all SMGs, except the Hurricane, do more damage while increasing their weight a bit
Make all the hard-hitting pistols do less damage, but lower their weight and increase their ammo count and magazine size

[LandoCalrisian]

You guys do realize that all weapons in game utilize tiny mass effect fields, right?

So there's no analog to Call of Duty weapons or real life weapons for that matter? There's no exploding shell propelling the bullets, so recoil won't behave the same, and

Just because they have similar form factors to real life weapons doesn't mean they have to conform to the COD or other video game models. I like that fact that there are basically no "useless" weapons in this game, just weapons that suit different playstyles better or worse. If assault rifles were the end-all weapon for non-sniper/non-CQC characters, the variety and roleplaying elements of the game would suffer.

[capn233]

The answer is probably in part because in ME1 they were the only weapons that were used by every single class, so they got a little help so that the casters could do at least a little weapon damage without requiring a bonus talent.  In ME2 the weapon balance was better overall, but they did have fewer weapons to deal with.  ME3's balance was just off, even considering they added the weight mechanic which should have essentially meant gun damage was proportional to the weight, excepting for some differences for niche and rarity.  But that didn't happen.

LandoCalrisian wrote...

You guys do realize that all weapons in game utilize tiny mass effect fields, right?

So there's no analog to Call of Duty weapons or real life weapons for that matter? There's no exploding shell propelling the bullets, so recoil won't behave the same, and

I do not like this argument for a number of reasons.

Foremost among them is that all the mass effect guns (with a couple exceptions) are railguns that are supplemented by mass effect fields.  In a railgun your muzzle velocity is basically proportional to rail length and the current through the rail.

If you assume that pistols somehow get around the rail length limitation by using stronger mass effect fields or currents, then it begs the question of why these improved fields don't quite seem to make it into other weapon classes.  It is a technology question... if the pistols are at one level of technology, why aren't the assault rifles?

MP balance has reigned in pistols a bit relative to the other classes, but none of those changes have been implemented in SP.

Modifié par capn233, 20 décembre 2012 - 04:20 .

[Nightmare137]

From the codex:

A mass accelerator propels a solid metal slug using precisely-controlled electromagnetic
attraction and repulsion. The slug is designed to squash or shatter on
impact, increasing the energy it transfers to the target. If this were
not the case, it would simply punch a hole right through, doing minimal
damage.
Accelerator design was revolutionized by element zero.
A slug lightened by a mass effect field can be accelerated to greater
speeds, permitting projectile velocities that were previously
unattainable. If accelerated to a high enough velocity, a simple paint
chip can impact with the same destructive force as a nuclear weapon.
However, mass accelerators produce recoil equal to their impact energy.
This is mitigated somewhat by the mass effect fields that rounds are
suspended within, but weapon recoil is still the prime limiting factor
on slug velocity.

and

All modern infantry weapons from pistols to assault rifles use micro-scaled mass accelerator technology. Projectiles consist of tiny metal slugs suspended within a mass-reducing field, accelerated by magnetic force to speeds that inflict kinetic damage.
The ammo magazine is a simple block of metal. The gun's internal
computer calculates the mass needed to reach the target based on
distance, gravity, and atmospheric pressure, then shears off an
appropriately sized slug from the block. A single block can supply
thousands of rounds, making ammo a non-issue during any engagement.
Top-line weapons also feature smart targeting that allows them to
correct for weather and environment. Firing on a target in a howling
gale feels the same as it does on a calm day on a practice range. Smart
targeting does not mean a bullet will automatically find the mark every
time the trigger is pulled; it only makes it easier for the marksman to
aim.

Besides this, it's just a game which means it requires tweaking to make things balanced so you dont have too easy/hard of a time and hate the game. You need to expect a sense of unrealism with games.

[Wulfram]

It seems to me like they have too much accuracy, generally

[capn233]

Nightmare137 wrote...

From the codex:...

Yes we know that, and the codex sidesteps the issue of smaller weapons that would naturally not have the capability to generate as high a magnetic field, or as long a barrel to accelerate in that magnetic field would have similar power to larger weapons.

Also we know that the type of mass accelerator that they are is a rail gun as opposed to a mass driver with a series of coils because in ME1 we had mods called Rail Extension and Scram Rail, and in ME3 specifically we have Rail Amps.

[Yate]

ME2 balanced them? Really? The game with the freaking Phalanx, aka the pistol that can be used as a no-recoil rapid-fire heavy damage sniper rifle?

[AlexMBrennan]

If you assume that pistols somehow get around the rail length limitation by using stronger mass effect fields or currents, then it begs the question of why these improved fields don't quite seem to make it into other weapon classes. It is a technology question... if the pistols are at one level of technology, why aren't the assault rifles?

Because it takes more power/generates more heat? You said it yourself: Rail length *and* current matter - the more current you use, the fewer shots you get before it overheats and/or you run out of power, which is exactly what you find in the game:

You can either make a gun that can fire a lot of projectiles at moderate velocity (Avenger), one that can fire a moderate number of projectiles at high velocity (Carniflex), and guns that can fire one projectile for massive damage (Widow).

SMG's wouldn't be held like a sidearm as they are displayed in the game

Yeah, you're right, those lazy writers should have correctly referred to them as compact submachine guns (Isn't Wikipedia great? We can all have discussions about things we've never seen in our lives!).

Regardless, some of the current SMGs do look rather like ME guns - e.g. the MP7:
. If it's shaped like a pistol and has no recoil (thanks to ME technology), why would you attach a bulky stock?

Modifié par AlexMBrennan, 20 décembre 2012 - 08:52 .

[capn233]

AlexMBrennan wrote...

Because it takes more power/generates more heat? You said it yourself: Rail length *and* current matter - the more current you use, the fewer shots you get before it overheats and/or you run out of power, which is exactly what you find in the game

Really?  The first part is partially true and is what I said essentially, but the second part is not true.

You can either make a gun that can fire a lot of projectiles at moderate velocity (Avenger), one that can fire a moderate number of projectiles at high velocity (Carniflex), and guns that can fire one projectile for massive damage (Widow).

Alright time for the numbers then:

Carnifex X
Weight: 0.35
Damage: 345.1
ROF: 100
DPS: 575.17

Viper X
Weight: 0.9
Damage: 286.7
ROF: 70
DPS: 334.48

Saber X
Weight: 1.4
Damage: 437.6
ROF: 80
DPS: 583.47

Viper is significantly heavier and larger than the Carnifex, yet it doesn't compete in any category.  Saber is 4x heavier, much larger, and still manages to only barely edge the Carnifex in DPS (both burst and sustained).  Why is the Saber heavier if all that is changed is less ROF for a little more damage?  Or conversely, why doesn't it do significantly more DPS than the Carnifex since it weighs 4x as much?

Talon X
Weight: 0.9
Damage: 540.6 (810.9 vs shields and barriers)
ROF: 75
DPS: 675.75 (1013.625 vs shields and barriers)

Katana X
Weight: 0.9
Damage: 481.60
ROF: 60
DPS: 481.60

Eviscerator X
Weight: 0.9
Damage: 599.2
ROF: 48
DPS: 419.2

Wraith X
Weight: 0.9
Damage: 831.2
ROF: 48
DPS: 664.96

Here is an interesting comparison between the Talon and shotguns in the 0.9 weight class.  Compared with the Talon, the Katana has both weaker damage and lower rate of fire.  Eviscerator manages to maybe look like it actually trades ROF for damage, except it isn't proportioned and DPS is lower.  If you factor in shields and barriers it looks like a terrible trade.  Of course you can finally approach the Talon vs health and armor with the Wraith... but it isn't as good vs shields and barriers and there is the issue that it is a 250k cr Spectre weapon and not a pistol you can pick up for free.

Next up is the most fun:

Predator X
Weight: 0.2
Damage: 73.5
ROF: 500
DPS: 612.50

Avenger X
Weight: 0.5
Damage: 48.2
ROF: 500
DPS: 401.67

Phaeston X
Weight: 0.9
Damage: 37.2
ROF: 600
DPS: 372

Revenant X
Weight: 1.4
Damage: 59.6
ROF: 650
DPS: 645.67

Predator vs Avenger is pretty hilarious.  You have a weapon that weighs less than half of the other one, but with the same rate of fire and substantially more damage.  Predator wins in burst DPS, and the margin is weirdly even more in its favor if you check reload canceled DPS.  Why did the Alliance even adopt the Avenger?  They should have just given all their soldiers the Predator.  Likewise the Turians don't fare any better;  the Phaeston weighs nearly 5 times as much as the Predator, but has nearly 50% less damage per shot for only a 20% increase in ROF.  To beat the Predator you need a light machinegun apparently, nevermind that the Revi has cartoonishly poor accuracy.  It is too bad that it weighs 7 times as much as the Predator for only a modest increase in DPS.  How does this correlate with the supposed "space physics" that we discussed earlier?

In nearly all the cases you are not simply trading damage for rate of fire.  Pistols nearly universally have the advantage over weapons with similar weight across the classes.  You do see some semblance of balance within classes occaisionally, but it isn't maintained across classes very well.

Modifié par capn233, 20 décembre 2012 - 10:16 .

[brad2240]

Ths pistol itself wasn't OP in ME1, Marksman was. I don't know if the result was intentional or not. Personally, I wish Marksman had been the assault rifle power and Overkill been for pistols.

I agree pistols were pretty well balanced in ME2, at least as far as the Predator and Carnifex go (never had the Phalanx). They offered 2 equally viable options and the pistol class had it's niche as armor breakers for classes that didn't have early access to snipers and ARs.

In ME3... I have no idea what they were thinking. The weapon classes as a whole are a mess, with too much overlap and not enough of a distinct purpose for each. Before I played 3 I never would have believed that I'd miss 2's protection system as much as I do.

It's odd but, despite pistols' power in all three games, I have more fun with assault rifles and still use them more on nearly every class. I never feel like i'm gimping myself, even if the math says otherwise.

[capn233]

brad2240 wrote...
I agree pistols were pretty well balanced in ME2, at least as far as the Predator and Carnifex go (never had the Phalanx). They offered 2 equally viable options and the pistol class had it's niche as armor breakers for classes that didn't have early access to snipers and ARs.

Forgot to mention the Phalanx in ME2...

It was pretty powerful... since it was DLC.  Really the DLC guns were not as balanced as the ones in the vanilla game except for perhaps the Eviscerator (Cerberus DLC).  Locust was sort of out of balance (made some AR's redundant), Mattock was way unbalanced under time dilation, Incisor was too good on squaddies...

[Islandrockzor]

Pistols irl are actually not the headshot-machines they're made out to be in this game. Removing most aiming capacities, unless modded heavily would be the way to go, if "current-day-realism" is what we're going for.

[Soja57]

Yate wrote...

ME2 balanced them? Really? The game with the freaking Phalanx, aka the pistol that can be used as a no-recoil rapid-fire heavy damage sniper rifle?

Phalanx is part of the Firepower DLC Pack though, which is priced. This justifies its pocket sniper rifle stats. If you ignore DLC weapons (which are generally more powerful than vanilla weapons), ME2 has the most balanced weapons out of the trilogy. There may be some minor issues here and there, but I like ME2's weapons the best. Weapons could actually be categorized into classes easily, and the damage modifiers vs protections adds even more depth to the weapons.

[Synergizer]

There are sooo many guns in ME3, many seem to cross-over to other categories, like snipers that have lots of shots, or assault guns that are more like shotguns. It's no wonder they aren't all balanced.
The geth assault gun really seems like I am using a pea shooter, whereas a talon feels like a pocket shot gun. I guess they did it this way so that different types of characters can use different types of weapons?

[Abraham_uk]

I guess most of the complaints with regarding weapon balance, lack of recoil, weight etc can be answered with the most cop out answer of all time. "It's the future".


I guess in the future, pistols are the way to go. Lighter, hard hitting, low recoil and more damaging.
Heck in Mass Effect, you don't need two hands to control the recoil of pistols and smg's anymore. That's how much technology has improved.
Why do you think Shepard likes to hold out a heavy pistol in the cutscenes?

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 24 décembre 2012 - 11:48 .

[Abraham_uk]

Synergizer wrote...

There are sooo many guns in ME3, many seem to cross-over to other categories, like snipers that have lots of shots, or assault guns that are more like shotguns. It's no wonder they aren't all balanced.
The geth assault gun really seems like I am using a pea shooter, whereas a talon feels like a pocket shot gun. I guess they did it this way so that different types of characters can use different types of weapons?

I do love the variety of weapons.
Though I do agree that balance is a little off.

If you have a problem with balance in Multiplayer talk to Eric Fagnan.
Give him the list of weapons that need improvement.


As for other single player. I haven't the faintest clue who deals with patches.

[Dr_Extrem]

yeah .. if mass effects pistols would be like the p1 (former bundeswehr sidearm), nobody would use them

8 warning shots and one aimed throw.

[Abraham_uk]

Dr_Extrem wrote...

yeah .. if mass effects pistols would be like the p1 (former bundeswehr sidearm), nobody would use them

8 warning shots and one aimed throw.

I find the Carnifex and the Paladin to be amazing!
I have no incentive to use sniper rifles with pistols like those!


Actually there is the Sniper banner and some of the snipers contribute towards the alien banners.

Modifié par Abraham_uk, 24 décembre 2012 - 01:23 .

[Dr_Extrem]

Abraham_uk wrote...

Dr_Extrem wrote...

yeah .. if mass effects pistols would be like the p1 (former bundeswehr sidearm), nobody would use them

8 warning shots and one aimed throw.

I find the Carnifex and the Paladin to be amazing!
I have no incentive to use sniper rifles with pistols like those!


Actually there is the Sniper banner and some of the snipers contribute towards the alien banners.

my p1-post was meant to be slightly comical.


that is the reason, i dont use those pistols. too powerfull. the talon is a killer .. especially, if you mod the hell out of ot.

even the predator is deadly if used correctly.


i stick to my valiant in sp ... its not op (no inbuild ap),the small clip and not enhancing spare ammo, make this weapon a good choice. the viper is my second choice.

as a sidearm, i prefer the predator.

[cdzander]

Longer barreled weapons usually have a much greater range. In ME3 the ranges of most firefights are so close the advantage of full power rifles are wasted. With bigger maps in MP ARs and SRs would have a significant advantage over pistols/smgs.

Even in SP the enemies tend to be almost on top of you most of the time. You are either indoors or they show up only a few meters away, dropping from the sky practically on your head.

[Soja57]

cdzander wrote...

Longer barreled weapons usually have a much greater range. In ME3 the ranges of most firefights are so close the advantage of full power rifles are wasted. With bigger maps in MP ARs and SRs would have a significant advantage over pistols/smgs.

Even in SP the enemies tend to be almost on top of you most of the time. You are either indoors or they show up only a few meters away, dropping from the sky practically on your head.

I agree. Longer range maps would allow weapons to fill different roles easier. Also, bigger maps mean more to explore, which is always welcome in my book.

[DRACO1130]

In my not so humble opinion - you all have it wrong. You are OVERTHINKING the issue.
The pistols are so powerful because they serve an easy aspect as a plot device. Essentially the pistols are everywhere and everyone has at least one.
so when Shep has to kill a merc leader so he can get the next in line leader - a single shot works.
Examples abound but the simple fact is that its a plot device with little to no thought given to the actuality of the overall weapons issue.
Pistols are overpowered so that they can use them as a panacea for every situation.

[Islandrockzor]

DRACO1130 wrote...

In my not so humble opinion - you all have it wrong. You are OVERTHINKING the issue.
The pistols are so powerful because they serve an easy aspect as a plot device. Essentially the pistols are everywhere and everyone has at least one.
so when Shep has to kill a merc leader so he can get the next in line leader - a single shot works.
Examples abound but the simple fact is that its a plot device with little to no thought given to the actuality of the overall weapons issue.
Pistols are overpowered so that they can use them as a panacea for every situation.

The pistols do the dps plot requires? :happy:

But seriously, as a guy who has fired AR type rifles, traditional rifles (more like snipers, although not proper ones) and pistols, pistols are by far the hardest ones to hit the targets with. However, mass effect is set to the future, so I guess they got better somewhere along the way.