289 réponses à ce sujet

[Arctican]

Stikman, what are your thoughts on the kits on each tier?

[himegoto]

Original Stikman wrote...

stefbomb wrote...

The only real way to get any sort of "objective" list would involve crunching numbers with internal BioWare game statistics (e.g. average/highest score and popularity of each class in Gold).

You would need to have statistics run for each class using the best players in the world. Popularity should have nothing to do with a tier.

Also, statistics are just a single perspective that leaves out many key elements.

Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality, in science.

I was going to give a response to this before going off but you wrote what to I was similarly thinking. Thanks.

Off for now. Will pick up later.

[nuh1]

WHAT, my precious huntress got slapped to tier B, blasphemy. IMO she needs to be higher with her high damage DC/Warp and high damage weapons with warp ammo. Many other complaints but I guess everyone can't have the same opinions. But God Tier is pretty spot on, lol.

[puldalpha]

MasterReefa wrote...

I think most classes are fine. The only buffs needed are to the Human Sentinel, Phoenix Vanguard, Quarian F Engineer, and Salarian Engineer.

Human Sentinel is fine imo. Good durability with great biotics, with that being said i wouldn't say no to a buff :innocent:

[najzere]

stefbomb wrote...
The only real way to get any sort of "objective" list would involve crunching numbers with internal BioWare game statistics (e.g. average/highest score and popularity of each class in Gold).

While objectivity is important, what is more important is understanding what the tier list is meant to accomplish. Your idea would simply give us an objective view of the easiest kits to use, not maximum potential.

Unfortunately OP has not stated a goal and I don't believe he even undestands what the goal should be since he's applying a definition of tier list meant for fighting games. Once we have the goal we can select the criteria on which a character is judged and rank those criteria, or more likely we will come to the same conclusion  our guts are telling us, which is that there are too many ways to play this game and too many goals to make one single tier list. As MP-Ryan has stated before, there are multiple factors that add value to a team, and any tier list will look differently depending on which factors you are measuring and what weights you are giving them.

[stefbomb]

Original Stikman wrote...

stefbomb wrote...

The only real way to get any sort of "objective" list would involve crunching numbers with internal BioWare game statistics (e.g. average/highest score and popularity of each class in Gold).

You would need to have statistics run for each class using the best players in the world. Popularity should have nothing to do with a tier.

Also, statistics are just a single perspective that leaves out many key elements.

Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality, in science.

You slightly misunderstand me here, what I meant was something like "top 1% quantile of scores for class X in Gold matches". That should naturally capture scores by the top players.

Modifié par stefbomb, 28 décembre 2012 - 10:39 .

[Original Twigman]

Arctican wrote...

Stikman, what are your thoughts on the kits on each tier?

Agree with many, disagree with some. EIther way, I wouldn't feel strongly enough about Himegoto's rankings to begin name-calling or disputing some of them.

I would probably raise the valkyrie & huntress (especially once they fix her), and raise the Batarian vangaurd (as I play him, imo, better than the "watered down krogaurd" which is what most people do).

Overall, its his perspective, and it is apparent to me that some people, with some pretty outlandish views, could learn from it. Frankly, If it were up to me, we would all be amazing at this game, and things like this could be debated by testing them out rather than just arguing preference.
Thanks for asking

[Cyonan]

himegoto wrote...
I gave plenty replies to those posts.
And a few others, like questioning how a Drellguard is above a Human Vanguard, or a GI is above a Tsent. Is too laughable and not worth the time with all due respect.

I play kits like the Vorchas, Drellguards to their full potential. But spin that around and I get attacked on "I clown them high only because I play well with them".
You must've seen the fair share of such posts already.

but you don't play the Turian Soldier to his full potential, then claim he's got poor survivability

The Drellguard requires a decently skilled player to not end up a corpse every 15 seconds, which when I point out that a decently skilled player with the TSol isn't going to die often either you claim that's not part of the kit. Yet you apparently did not think that for the Drellguard who really does not do more damage than the TSol.

and you haven't responded to my last post about that yet =P

Original Stikman wrote...
While I agree with the fundamental flaws of the list, I don't think that it is "unfair" to judge a kit by its full potential.

Ex. In order to test optimal sprots performance (testing drug protcol, training regime, rest intervals, etc.) You wouldn't use average citizens in order to see "what works and what doesn't." You would use top olympic athletes performing at maximum potential, otherwise you would get results that are misplaced by mediocre performance factors.

I don't think it's unfair to judge based on full potential, but doing so requires that you yourself can play at the full potential. The OP is being inconsistent in this regard. Just look at people pointing out the Turian Soldier not being nearly as bad at his full potential as the OP is pointing out.

I would judge tanks in MMOs that I've played based on their full potential since I generally like to think that I can play them at that level. I would not judge the casters however since they are not a group of classes that I regularly play. I can do okay with them, but a full potential player with them I am not.

Modifié par Cyonan, 28 décembre 2012 - 10:42 .

[Original Twigman]

stefbomb wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

stefbomb wrote...

The only real way to get any sort of "objective" list would involve crunching numbers with internal BioWare game statistics (e.g. average/highest score and popularity of each class in Gold).

You would need to have statistics run for each class using the best players in the world. Popularity should have nothing to do with a tier.

Also, statistics are just a single perspective that leaves out many key elements.

Objectivity is an ideal, not a reality, in science.

You slightly misunderstand me here, what I meant was something like "top 1% quantile of scores for class X in Gold matches". That should naturally capture scores by the top players.

Misunderstanding happens. If that is what you meant, then i agree. I pretty much said the same thing in regards to drawing statistics.

[T41rdEye]

This is a thinly veiled "classes I'm most effective with" list.

lol @OP for arguing otherwise. Too many variables. Weapons, mods, playstyle, enemy faction, etc.

[Original Twigman]

Cyonan wrote...

I don't think it's unfair to judge based on full potential, but doing so requires that you yourself can play at the full potential. The OP is being inconsistent in this regard. Just look at people pointing out the Turian Soldier not being nearly as bad at his full potential as the OP is pointing out.

I would judge tanks in MMOs that I've played based on their full potential since I generally like to think that I can play them at that level. I would not judge the casters however since they are not a group of classes that I regularly play. I can do okay with them, but a full potential player with them I am not.

I agree with you on this point. Just wanted to make sure you weren't claiming that it is "unfair" to judge a character by its max potential, assuming it can be played as such.

Won't comment on the turian soldier.

[Cyonan]

Original Stikman wrote...

Cyonan wrote...

I don't think it's unfair to judge based on full potential, but doing so requires that you yourself can play at the full potential. The OP is being inconsistent in this regard. Just look at people pointing out the Turian Soldier not being nearly as bad at his full potential as the OP is pointing out.

I would judge tanks in MMOs that I've played based on their full potential since I generally like to think that I can play them at that level. I would not judge the casters however since they are not a group of classes that I regularly play. I can do okay with them, but a full potential player with them I am not.

I agree with you on this point. Just wanted to make sure you weren't claiming that it is "unfair" to judge a character by its max potential, assuming it can be played as such.

Won't comment on the turian soldier.

I think that it's generally a good way to judge something on is by the full potential.

Which is historically why you wont see me commenting that much on Adepts, because I don't play them that much except the Justicar which I play as a biotic soldier =P

[Vecte]

Three of your four "God Tier" characters are only above average due to certain weapons. Kroguard=Reegar, TGI=Harrier, GI=Geth Weapons. Take these weapons away and they become average characters. QMI is the only one that really excels in multiple areas, regardless of weapon.

[Original Twigman]

Cyonan wrote...

I think that it's generally a good way to judge something on is by the full potential.

Which is historically why you wont see me commenting that much on Adepts, because I don't play them that much except the Justicar which I play as a biotic soldier =P

A level-headed BSNer?

You sir, are a blight

[Cyonan]

Vecte wrote...

Three of your four "God Tier" characters are only above average due to certain weapons. Kroguard=Reegar, TGI=Harrier, GI=Geth Weapons. Take these weapons away and they become average characters. QMI is the only one that really excels in multiple areas, regardless of weapon.

GI is part of the council of weapon masters(I needed a new name since I can't call it the triangle anymore) who can make pretty much any weapon good.

GI + Piranha is also still an amazing combo. The Javelin just made a comeback with Drill Rounds for piercing all the things.

[Original Twigman]

Vecte wrote...

Three of your four "God Tier" characters are only above average due to certain weapons. Kroguard=Reegar, TGI=Harrier, GI=Geth Weapons. Take these weapons away and they become average characters. QMI is the only one that really excels in multiple areas, regardless of weapon.

TGI and GI are not only good because of the weapons you posed.

I can take an average weapon and crush with it using the GI....

I am not sure how you have based this.

I won't comment on the Krogan

[UEG Donkey]

IMO, the list isn't horrible I mean you can nitpick over 2-3 classes but other than that it was prepped pretty well. IMO I'd lower Kroguard and raise Batguard. Overall good list

[Zjarcal]

himegoto wrote...

(original) Turians ?
- Without sugar-coating anything, Bad kits. Viable, but bad.

Modifié par Zjarcal, 28 décembre 2012 - 11:12 .

[Vecte]

Original Stikman wrote...

Vecte wrote...

Three of your four "God Tier" characters are only above average due to certain weapons. Kroguard=Reegar, TGI=Harrier, GI=Geth Weapons. Take these weapons away and they become average characters. QMI is the only one that really excels in multiple areas, regardless of weapon.

TGI and GI are not only good because of the weapons you posed.

I can take an average weapon and crush with it using the GI....

I am not sure how you have based this.

I won't comment on the Krogan

Fair enough on the Geth.  He does have more damage potential even without the Geth Weapons.  TGI is definitely not god tier though.  TC gives too much of a boost to the already high DPS of the Harrier.  Without the Harrier in the picture, the Havoc is just as effective at dropping targets as the TGI.

[Original Twigman]

Vecte wrote...

Original Stikman wrote...

Vecte wrote...

Three of your four "God Tier" characters are only above average due to certain weapons. Kroguard=Reegar, TGI=Harrier, GI=Geth Weapons. Take these weapons away and they become average characters. QMI is the only one that really excels in multiple areas, regardless of weapon.

TGI and GI are not only good because of the weapons you posed.

I can take an average weapon and crush with it using the GI....

I am not sure how you have based this.

I won't comment on the Krogan

Fair enough on the Geth.  He does have more damage potential even without the Geth Weapons.  TGI is definitely not god tier though.  TC gives too much of a boost to the already high DPS of the Harrier.  Without the Harrier in the picture, the Havoc is just as effective at dropping targets as the TGI.

PPR

[Cyonan]

Vecte wrote...

Fair enough on the Geth.  He does have more damage potential even without the Geth Weapons.  TGI is definitely not god tier though.  TC gives too much of a boost to the already high DPS of the Harrier.  Without the Harrier in the picture, the Havoc is just as effective at dropping targets as the TGI.

Actually I'd like to point out the Typhoon, Sabre, and especially PPR(which one could argue is better at killing than the Harrier).

[Vecte]

Cyonan wrote...

Vecte wrote...

Fair enough on the Geth.  He does have more damage potential even without the Geth Weapons.  TGI is definitely not god tier though.  TC gives too much of a boost to the already high DPS of the Harrier.  Without the Harrier in the picture, the Havoc is just as effective at dropping targets as the TGI.

Actually I'd like to point out the Typhoon, Sabre, and especially PPR(which one could argue is better at killing than the Harrier).

Typhoon and PPR are both interrupted by stagger.  Saber is fun, but is much slower on larger targets.  Take away the Harrier and the SI is a better character.  He can drain and refill in one move, debuff his target, and take down larger targets much faster.

Modifié par Vecte, 28 décembre 2012 - 11:30 .

[Poison_Berrie]

Original Stikman wrote...

Also, statistics are just a single perspective that leaves out many key elements.

NNNGGGGHH!

Statistics are tools to collect data. It's as flawed and biased as it's wielder.

[Hiero Glyph]

Wouldn't the only proper way to do a tier list involve using +/- values to determine their overall score? What I mean is that if a class has 1,500 total base health and shields then it gets +1, if it has less than 1,000 then it gets -1. Things like passive speed bonuses provide +1 while not being able to dodge is -1. Damage reduction is +1, shield/barrier restoration skills are +1, etc. Debuff skills are +1, AoE skills are +1, instant hit skills (no travel time) is +1, etc. While the system would require some major tweaking it could be a plausible and unbiased method to determine tiers regardless of the current build or player skill.