DullahansXMark wrote...
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.
krknight wrote...
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.
krknight wrote...
DullahansXMark wrote...
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.
but his lowest tier is "c."
himegoto wrote...
Some of you might be compelled to say to me a tier list is impossible
because ME3 is not a FG. Firstly if one get discredited and discouraged on
trying things then humanity might as well stop here.
himegoto wrote...
However if you disagree with the majority of my tier list. I'll go right out and say this - it's safe for me to assume you're a noob. Check yourself if you have at least 500 hours into the game, frequent gold and platinum matches, and near maxing out your manifest, to experience on more optimal setups. No those aren't criterias, but you get the point.
Modifié par Ryumanjisen, 31 décembre 2012 - 12:47 .
DullahansXMark wrote...
krknight wrote...
DullahansXMark wrote...
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.
but his lowest tier is "c."
He said the Turians are bad kits.
He stuck them in the B-tier.
Therefore, B-tier is bad.
Unless I'm seriously missing something here.
Ryumanjisen wrote...
himegoto wrote...
However if you disagree with the majority of my tier list. I'll go right out and say this - it's safe for me to assume you're a noob. Check yourself if you have at least 500 hours into the game, frequent gold and platinum matches, and near maxing out your manifest, to experience on more optimal setups. No those aren't criterias, but you get the point.
That's preposterous. I have 416 hours played, frequent gold and platinum matches and a near maxing out manifest. Not only that, I have been playing fighting games for more than 20 years and I am what you can call a semi-professional player (a decent one, if I'm allowed to say that myself), so I am very accustomed to what a tier list is.
And guess what? I disagree with the majority of your tier list. And I'm not a noob. So don't be so safe about your assumptions.
Modifié par DullahansXMark, 31 décembre 2012 - 12:52 .
DullahansXMark wrote...
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 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.
Original Stikman wrote...
DullahansXMark wrote...
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 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.
You are making a good point. If you allow me to tweak your point, I think you will realize that we are actually saying the same thing.
The game, as a whole, allows access to ALL the tools available to all the players (i.e. it doesn't discriminate). The same goes for any game, co-op or pvp. Most players aren't top notch in both types of games (co-op/pvp), however, the best players know how to use the same tools better than their counterparts. WIth this in mind, a skilled player can use the same tools available to all kits, better for some kits (GI, Valkyrie, etc.) than others (turian sabatour, volus merc. etc.) You are acknowledging that the variables in the game are interdependent, along with the players involved, which I agree with and have been saying.
Original Stikman wrote...
had nothing to do with grammar. Had to do with logical reasoning, specifically toward neglecting the fact that there is hardly a thing as an independent variable and that variables are all interdependent.
mr_slowpoker wrote...
Asari Huntress...at B?
Seriously??
Modifié par krknight, 31 décembre 2012 - 01:11 .
Original Stikman wrote...
The game, as a whole, allows access to ALL the tools available to all the players (i.e. it doesn't discriminate). The same goes for any game, co-op or pvp. Most players aren't top notch in both types of games (co-op/pvp), however, the best players know how to use the same tools better than their counterparts. WIth this in mind, a skilled player can use the same tools available to all kits, better for some kits (GI, Valkyrie, etc.) than others (turian sabatour, volus merc. etc.) You are acknowledging that the variables in the game are interdependent, along with the players involved, which I agree with and have been saying.
Atheosis wrote...
This stupid thread is still alive? LOL...
Atheosis wrote...
This stupid thread is still alive? LOL...
himegoto wrote...
However if you disagree with the majority of my tier list. I'll go right out and say this - it's safe for me to assume you're a noob. Check yourself if you have at least 500 hours into the game, frequent gold and platinum matches, and near maxing out your manifest, to experience on more optimal setups. No those aren't criterias, but you get the point. Claiming a HV or a Tsent > a Drellguard is way too outlandish and only shows one lacks experience to the game.
I hope to those that disagreed my list completely, learnt something here.
My takes on a weapon platform Human Sentinel (which now the Valkyrie just completely stole his spotlight) or a stasis-less Asari Vanguard months ago spirred up controversies and as usual, personal attacks. But give it a few months and now they're the most agreed upon and pinnacle builds.
(1)DullahansXMark wrote...
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? (1)
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? (2)
Yet again, I see what you're trying to accomplish, Bjorndadwarf.BjornDaDwarf wrote...
himegoto wrote...
However if you disagree with the majority of my tier list. I'll go right out and say this - it's safe for me to assume you're a noob. Check yourself if you have at least 500 hours into the game, frequent gold and platinum matches, and near maxing out your manifest, to experience on more optimal setups. No those aren't criterias, but you get the point. Claiming a HV or a Tsent > a Drellguard is way too outlandish and only shows one lacks experience to the game.
I hope to those that disagreed my list completely, learnt something here.
My takes on a weapon platform Human Sentinel (which now the Valkyrie just completely stole his spotlight) or a stasis-less Asari Vanguard months ago spirred up controversies and as usual, personal attacks. But give it a few months and now they're the most agreed upon and pinnacle builds.
Hadn't seen this enlightening update here. Arrogant much? Messiah complex? Because a Stasis-less AV hasn't existed since...oh...April? It became popular, all on it's own, once Grenade Gear was introduced.
It's my best attempt to stay civilized on bsn.Oblivionmancer wrote...
I have to say that I'm a bit bummed by the OP's attitude in the first post and throughout the thread. For all his complaints about petty insults, he's the one throwing about arrogance and condescension throughout the thread. I think this is an interesting subject worthy of discussion, if the tone of the thread was one of explanation and education instead of just demands for those unclear on the idea of a 'tier list' to educate themselves.
As to the subject at hand, I have a point of contention with characters like the TGI sitting on the top of the tier list. What makes the Ghost, for example, popular and good is that it can do so well with anything but 'play to the highest potential.' Rather, any shlub who can point a gun in the enemies general direction can excel with him. I think the difference between a poor TGI and an excellent one is much smaller than say, the difference between a poor Fury and a 'Perfect' one. I feel like it's at least possible that the ceiling is much higher for a character like her, who doesn't have a bunch of fail-safes to bail players out of errors, if the person holding the controller is able to play without error. I'm not certain that that's true, but I think it's a big enough possibility not to be dismissed out of hand.
All in all, I think it's a shame that this thread isn't devoted to more interesting discussions of that kind. Oh well! I've at least been inspired to give the Human Sentinel a spin for the first time in a while, so thanks for that, OP!
Naturally.darkpassenger2342 wrote...
dodge is really really important to himegeto.
You said this :krknight wrote...
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.
Following that logic, you can make a tier list with that guideline. And place the Drell Adept at the very bottom of the tier. No grenade gears, no adrenaline mod.krknight wrote...
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.
Retour en haut