289 réponses à ce sujet

[himegoto]

Updated the thread post.

[himegoto]

krknight wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

You keep arguing "without weapons." It isn't a valid argument because all kits have the same access to the same non-specific-power tools (gear, weapons, consumables, mods, etc.). I could very well say "if you didn't use your powers" and flip it around, but that would be silly. To also have "support for your argument by suggesting that the kits should be compared by using the same weapons is also ridiculous.

You also seem to be lumping me in agreement with OP's list, which i never said i agreed with.

I won't argue that the GI has more potential than the fury with you. Its not a sustainable argument.

okay, now you're just trolling.  

if you can't see the importance of how well a class can do after subtracting all outside factors that are universally available to all the characters, then i'm wasting my breath.  

powers are the largest factor in concerns to the uniqueness of each character, not weapons.  even health and shields plays a larger role in a character's uniqueness than weapons.  anyway, powers should carry much more weight in factoring tiers.  anything readily available to any character should not take precedence over things that are not.  

since a harrier X on any character makes that character a strong character, it should not be the determining factor for what makes a character good.  now if how well a character wields the harrier X is a determining factor, then so should how said character does with an acolyte X, a mantis X, and all other weapons as long as it's the same weapon and at the same level.  

if one is going to make the argument that the top tier characters should be based on how well they do with the top 5 guns in the game, then one also has to make the argument on how well a character does with all of the other guns available.  

Certain kits benefits better with certain guns and equipments.

[himegoto]

MuKen wrote...

himegoto wrote...
Anyone arguing the Acolyte are now better with charge up time and faster RoF is just trying to be one special snowflake.
Using powers with an Instant-fire Acolyte does not intervene with each other and will always give you that immediate answer to sitations in field.

Such statements of complete ignorance make it hard to value your opinion on anything.  Charge weapons are instant-fire too if you are capable of handling the monumentally difficult task of holding a charge while you are waiting to fire.

In addition to having the advantage of being able to be fired DURING the animations of powers and fire without breaking cloak.

I precisely said you couldn't charge your acolyte while using powers. Which is critical in playing aggressive / clearing out mobs faster for the team.

Sorry you're still not a special snowflake. But stay classy.

[himegoto]

SectiplaveB4 wrote...

It looks fairly accurate considering what Tier list is.

My main gripe is the Huntress, I would have thought she'd be A rank myself.

Thanks.
It's the best I could do with 5 tier ranks. "Fix" her and she'll be easily S+ or SSS.

[mackfactor]

himegoto wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

It seems this list is trying too hard to be controversial. Putting Drell Vanguard a tier above Drell Adept is ridiculous.

Single target (and bosses) kill time are much faster with the Drellguard.
Furthermore as pointed out, some classes are maps and nades dependent.

How could a character that can't create biotic explosions on armored targets possibly kill bosses faster than one that can and otherwise has very similar powers?

[mackfactor]

Doc-Jek wrote...

How is Huntress in B tier? She's one of the best classes in the game... Slap on warp ammo and a harrier and the kit is just downright overpowered.

This. With her TC buffed Dark Channel, plus the ability to detonate, her DPS is through the roof. I use her with sniper rifles generally and you can annihilate the enemy without ever getting near them or taking much fire.

[mackfactor]

himegoto wrote...

SectiplaveB4 wrote...

It looks fairly accurate considering what Tier list is.

My main gripe is the Huntress, I would have thought she'd be A rank myself.

Thanks.
It's the best I could do with 5 tier ranks. "Fix" her and she'll be easily S+ or SSS.

Honestly, she'd be WAY too powerful if they gave her a weapon damage boost with her TC. WAY.

[Mr Arg]

Great list, good sir! As much as I love using the huntress, I agree about where she stands. Also I'm glad you put the krosol in top, he is so underrated.

[Curzyfish]

mackfactor wrote...

himegoto wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

It seems this list is trying too hard to be controversial. Putting Drell Vanguard a tier above Drell Adept is ridiculous.

Single target (and bosses) kill time are much faster with the Drellguard.
Furthermore as pointed out, some classes are maps and nades dependent.

How could a character that can't create biotic explosions on armored targets possibly kill bosses faster than one that can and otherwise has very similar powers?

Yes, i've been trying to figure this out as well.  I like the DV, but unless you are just dropping every single cluster grenade you've got on every single boss, I don't see how you could possibly kill a boss faster with the vanguard than the adept.  (reave + warp ammo > biotic charge weapon bonus... and if you take weapon bonus your cluster grenades are no different than the adept)

[Kama45]

I like it. Probably put Batarian Soldier in top tier.

[HinDae]

Implying the Volus Engineer is anything short (Hyuk hyuk) of godlike, with his laughing in the face of objectives and potentially keeping entire teams alive indefinately, while holding down key choke points with potential debuffs of 40% and 30% to movement speed. The very definition of team player.

[Original Twigman]

krknight wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

You keep arguing "without weapons." It isn't a valid argument because all kits have the same access to the same non-specific-power tools (gear, weapons, consumables, mods, etc.). I could very well say "if you didn't use your powers" and flip it around, but that would be silly. To also have "support for your argument by suggesting that the kits should be compared by using the same weapons is also ridiculous.

You also seem to be lumping me in agreement with OP's list, which i never said i agreed with.

I won't argue that the GI has more potential than the fury with you. Its not a sustainable argument.

okay, now you're just trolling.  

if you can't see the importance of how well a class can do after subtracting all outside factors that are universally available to all the characters, then i'm wasting my breath.  

powers are the largest factor in concerns to the uniqueness of each character, not weapons.  even health and shields plays a larger role in a character's uniqueness than weapons.  anyway, powers should carry much more weight in factoring tiers.  anything readily available to any character should not take precedence over things that are not.  

since a harrier X on any character makes that character a strong character, it should not be the determining factor for what makes a character good.  now if how well a character wields the harrier X is a determining factor, then so should how said character does with an acolyte X, a mantis X, and all other weapons as long as it's the same weapon and at the same level.  

if one is going to make the argument that the top tier characters should be based on how well they do with the top 5 guns in the game, then one also has to make the argument on how well a character does with all of the other guns available. 

I bolded your main point.

An easy counter argument, that completely eliminates the ground that this argument stands on is this: The game isn'y played by "subtracting outside factors," therefore the entire point is moot.

You want to quantify independent variables for a game that doesn't play as such. If you wanted to do this, you would also have to play on each map, vs. each faction, play with each kit combination i a party 4,3, & 2. You would also have to play with different amounts of lag. All of these variables are a waste of time, and isn't how the game is played.

For example, take two top level olympic track athletes. You want to see which one is better, so what do you do? you let them race! You don't say, "hey athlete A can do well in these shoes, so athlete B has to wear them, too! therefore, if athlete B can't beat athlete A in those shoes athlete B is better, despite the fact that athlete A can beat athlete B in his own shoes"

Btw, just because someone is making counter arguments, doesn't mean they are "trolling." If you don't know how to construct arguments, but keep engaging in them as if you do, then you would be trolling yourself

Modifié par Original Stikman, 30 décembre 2012 - 07:13 .

[BjornDaDwarf]

Curzyfish wrote...

mackfactor wrote...

himegoto wrote...

CmnDwnWrkn wrote...

It seems this list is trying too hard to be controversial. Putting Drell Vanguard a tier above Drell Adept is ridiculous.

Single target (and bosses) kill time are much faster with the Drellguard.
Furthermore as pointed out, some classes are maps and nades dependent.

How could a character that can't create biotic explosions on armored targets possibly kill bosses faster than one that can and otherwise has very similar powers?

Yes, i've been trying to figure this out as well.  I like the DV, but unless you are just dropping every single cluster grenade you've got on every single boss, I don't see how you could possibly kill a boss faster with the vanguard than the adept.  (reave + warp ammo > biotic charge weapon bonus... and if you take weapon bonus your cluster grenades are no different than the adept)

DV might be able to do it if you are counting on FEs.  Prime, charge to detonate, prime, grenade to detonate, rince, repeat.  The DV actually can charge a lot of bosses pretty safely thanks to his movement speed (barring maybe Praetorians, because predicting their kills so far eludes me).

[Curzyfish]

Considering how mow much weaker explosions based off of ammo are, the fact that you actually won't get a fire explosion with each charge / cluster from incendiary ammo, and that you cannot get FE's from incendiary ammo on shields / barriers, I still don't see that making up for it. Disruptor ammo probably comes closer, but you'd need like 3 or 4 tech bursts simply to MATCH the damage being done by one BE from the drell adept (to armor).

Modifié par Curzyfish, 30 décembre 2012 - 10:52 .

[krknight]

himegoto wrote...

Certain kits benefits better with certain guns and equipments.

how insightful...  

just as certain kits benefits better with more of the guns and equipments.

[J4mes]

Tierlist should be changed to, any class that can use the warp+incendaryammo exploit is god tier.

Basically the Batarian soldier is the best class in the game if max out power passives, bleed on your blades, and damage on your grenades.

[corporal doody]

HIMEGOTO's tier list differs from CORPORAL DOODY's tier list.

cant call the OPINION...err i mean TIER LIST wrong....but i can say i disagree

[ROBOTICSUPERMAN]

turian soldier? B? really? the character that is often connected with the comon phrase'(incert weapon) works well on a turian soldier'
retry the characters, try different builds, and try to retier them again!

cos that was just plain s**t

[krknight]

Original Stikman wrote...

I bolded your main point.

An easy counter argument, that completely eliminates the ground that this argument stands on is this: The game isn'y played by "subtracting outside factors," therefore the entire point is moot.

You want to quantify independent variables for a game that doesn't play as such. If you wanted to do this, you would also have to play on each map, vs. each faction, play with each kit combination i a party 4,3, & 2. You would also have to play with different amounts of lag. All of these variables are a waste of time, and isn't how the game is played.

For example, take two top level olympic track athletes. You want to see which one is better, so what do you do? you let them race! You don't say, "hey athlete A can do well in these shoes, so athlete B has to wear them, too! therefore, if athlete B can't beat athlete A in those shoes athlete B is better, despite the fact that athlete A can beat athlete B in his own shoes"

Btw, just because someone is making counter arguments, doesn't mean they are "trolling." If you don't know how to construct arguments, but keep engaging in them as if you do, then you would be trolling yourself

uh no.  the majority of the players do not have full manifests first of all, so your "easy" counter argument isn't.  how many people have a harrier X or BW X?  the majority of games people go into will involve teams without full manifests.  how many times do people go into a game without missiles or medigels?  

these are actual in game situations and should be accounted for in compiling a tier list.  if you're going to compile a list on the basis of how well character A does with 5 missiles in a match, you also have to account for how well character A does in a match without 5 missiles.   

that's exactly right about quantifying independant variables.  the amount of lag situation is not a variable that can be controlled, but if you're not compiling a tier list based on a character's abilities to handle the game according to maps, with how many other players are available and such, then the list is not valid because these are all in game situations and controllable experiments.

as for your track athletes, that's a horrible analogy.  if the type of shoes didn't matter, then the better athlete should still be able to win running in snow shoes or flip flops against the athlete in high performance track shoes.  there is a reason why certain swim suits are banned by the olympic committee.  to determine who the best athlete is, swim suits with a clear advantage are therefore stricken from competition.

edit:  changed "character" to "character's."

Modifié par krknight, 30 décembre 2012 - 11:20 .

[DullahansXMark]

I think all characters should be God Tier. They all have the power to kill an entire spawn in one hit.

[Original Twigman]

krknight wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

I bolded your main point.

An easy counter argument, that completely eliminates the ground that this argument stands on is this: The game isn'y played by "subtracting outside factors," therefore the entire point is moot.

You want to quantify independent variables for a game that doesn't play as such. If you wanted to do this, you would also have to play on each map, vs. each faction, play with each kit combination i a party 4,3, & 2. You would also have to play with different amounts of lag. All of these variables are a waste of time, and isn't how the game is played.

For example, take two top level olympic track athletes. You want to see which one is better, so what do you do? you let them race! You don't say, "hey athlete A can do well in these shoes, so athlete B has to wear them, too! therefore, if athlete B can't beat athlete A in those shoes athlete B is better, despite the fact that athlete A can beat athlete B in his own shoes"

Btw, just because someone is making counter arguments, doesn't mean they are "trolling." If you don't know how to construct arguments, but keep engaging in them as if you do, then you would be trolling yourself

uh no.  the majority of the players do not have full manifests first of all, so your "easy" counter argument isn't.  how many people have a harrier X or BW X?  the majority of games people go into will involve teams without full manifests.  how many times do people go into a game without missiles or medigels? 

these are actual in game situations and should be accounted for in compiling a tier list.  if you're going to compile a list on the basis of how well character A does with 5 missiles in a match, you also have to account for how well character A does in a match without 5 missiles.   

that's exactly right about quantifying independant variables.  the amount of lag situation is not a variable that can be controlled, but if you're not compiling a tier list based on a character's abilities to handle the game according to maps, with how many other players are available and such, then the list is not valid because these are all in game situations and controllable experiments.

as for your track athletes, that's a horrible analogy.  if the type of shoes didn't matter, then the better athlete should still be able to win running in snow shoes or flip flops against the athlete in high performance track shoes.  there is a reason why certain swim suits are banned by the olympic committee.  to determine who the best athlete is, swim suits with a clear advantage are therefore stricken from competition.

edit:  changed "character" to "character's."

I am done.

using Ad populum arguments (bolded) that don't have a point in the topic in debate: "the Fury is more capable than the GI, because it doesn't need guns." Along with implementing the OP's tier list into the argument which has nothing to do with the above argument. You either forgot that the premise is "maximum potential" or you don't know how to stay on topic for an argument, or perhaps you just dont know how to argue. Don't know, don't care.

Modifié par Original Stikman, 31 décembre 2012 - 12:19 .

[Original Twigman]

krknight wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

I bolded your main point.

An easy counter argument, that completely eliminates the ground that this argument stands on is this: The game isn'y played by "subtracting outside factors," therefore the entire point is moot.

You want to quantify independent variables for a game that doesn't play as such. If you wanted to do this, you would also have to play on each map, vs. each faction, play with each kit combination i a party 4,3, & 2. You would also have to play with different amounts of lag. All of these variables are a waste of time, and isn't how the game is played.

For example, take two top level olympic track athletes. You want to see which one is better, so what do you do? you let them race! You don't say, "hey athlete A can do well in these shoes, so athlete B has to wear them, too! therefore, if athlete B can't beat athlete A in those shoes athlete B is better, despite the fact that athlete A can beat athlete B in his own shoes"

Btw, just because someone is making counter arguments, doesn't mean they are "trolling." If you don't know how to construct arguments, but keep engaging in them as if you do, then you would be trolling yourself

as for your track athletes, that's a horrible analogy.  if the type of shoes didn't matter, then the better athlete should still be able to win running in snow shoes or flip flops against the athlete in high performance track shoes.  there is a reason why certain swim suits are banned by the olympic committee.  to determine who the best athlete is, swim suits with a clear advantage are therefore stricken from competition

Btw, read this outloud to yourself. Then hold Alt + F4

[krknight]

i don't know how to argue?

i addressed each of your arguments and provided evidence that would refute as such. your straw man argument of the olympic track athletes is the best example of how i addressed your argument, showed how it would negatively apply to this thread, and then provided an example of how it doesn't even work outside of this thread.

if you can't see the "maximum potential" versus "maximum potential given ALL circumstances," then carry on.

[DullahansXMark]

Original Stikman wrote...

I am done.

using Ad populum arguments (bolded) that don't have a point in the topic in debate: "the Fury is more capable than the GI, because it doesn't need guns." Along with implementing the OP's tier list into the argument which has nothing to do with the above argument. You either forgot that the premise is "maximum potential" or you don't know how to stay on topic for an argument, or perhaps you just dont know how to argue. Don't know, don't care.

The biggest problem is in the "maximum potential" debate. If someone was good enough they could play any class without getting hit if they wanted to, which means every class has max survivability. Most other categories would be slashed out in a similar manner, leaving, basically, only DPS in the fray. Suddenly the Kroguard would be near the bottom of the list, and (as expected) the GI would reign supreme.

The error is in weighing characters for MAX potential in a co-op game. That would make plenty sense in a competitive setting, but in here? Most players aren't top-notch, and thus can't use a kit to its max potential. It would make a lot more sense, therefore, to use what advantages a class has over others and using that to weigh against the others: what a SKILLED player can do, but not what a PERFECT player can do.

Example: a top-notch player can sidestep a GI's fragility by simply using his speed to dodge everything. However, what if he gets hit? Unlike, say, the Drell, he doesn't have sufficient countermeasures against that. Most players can't avoid always taking damage, so a given player could potentially just keep dropping and dropping with a GI. They'd still do a lot of damage when they're up, but how often are they up?

That example was a fair bit more clumsy than I would've hoped, but it says what I'm trying to say.

EDIT: I also find an issue with the OP using different types of weapons on each character. The Kroguard gets better damage than (random example that makes no sense incoming) a Turian Soldier because he's using a Reegar? What if the TSol was using a Reegar, too? And a GI is better than a Kroguard because he's using a Piranha in combination with a Harrier? ... what? How does this even begin to make any sense to anyone?


Also: I don't know who said this, but someone said that B-tier doesn't necessarily mean "bad". Himegoto's RESERVED section basically states this with the Turian descriptions, so in this case, it more or less does.

Modifié par DullahansXMark, 31 décembre 2012 - 12:38 .

[krknight]

Original Stikman wrote...

Btw, read this outloud to yourself. Then hold Alt + F4

yeah yeah, i'm watching a football game.  grammar takes a backseat...  anyway, nitpicking is usually a sign of forfeiture.  

edit:  it would be like me pointing out that "outloud" is not a word.

Modifié par krknight, 31 décembre 2012 - 12:40 .