239 réponses à ce sujet

[born2beagator]

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

born2beagator wrote...

Dist0rt3d Hum0r wrote...

I personally don't think its overused per say, just used a whole lot, but thats not overused mind you.

In all seriousness though, I dont really care if someone in my squad wants to use a harrier. By all means, go ahead. I especially love seeing Demolishers use it because I know they'll pick a good vantage point to post up (usually). I don't really use it because I personally dont like the demolisher class, and thats really the only viable class I can see using it that doesnt have to dryhump an ammo box all the time.

I wouldln't mind seeing a small buff to its reserve ammo, or maybe a nerf to the firing rate and a buff to damage? Or a buff to ammo capacity and a nerf to damage to balance it out? IDK, just some thoughts on my part.

Nope.  Doesn't need anything.  The ammo clip is what keeps it balanced.  Its perfect the way it is.

So.
-> Insanely high damage per shot
-> Extremely precise
-> Precise even out of cover
-> Medium weight, a maybe on casters

-> low ammo.

Yep, exactly the same number of pros as contras.

The devs said that they balance stuff if it is used too much themselves. These are not my words.

The low ammo is a pretty big con.  plus we are missing the biggest reason to not nerf.  its an UR.  Its supposed to have more pros than cons.  Leave it alone, enjoy the game, and stop trying to mess it up for others.

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

etm125 wrote...

born2beagator wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...
 According to the newest telemetrical data we received, the Harrier is the most used weapon in the game. To all the people claiming that the Harrier is not overused, perfectly balanced and that I should GTFO, consider this a middle finger towards you. I've made my point often enough and would like to toss my Harrier IV (second highest UR...kill it..) away in the fires of Mount Doom.

So, Bioware once said they only balance stuff to prevent overusing. I say now is the time.
Hopefully there will be some looking into this in the next balance changes. Any words on that? 

if it hasn't happened by now, its not going to happen.  Sorry nerfers.  I think you are out of luck on this one.  Might as well stop whining about it

OP where is this data? I'm interested.

Gator, I think most so called nerfers would also be ok with a buff to the other ARs so long as you don't see blatantly skewed use statistics like OP says. It's just a whole lot of work to buff everything else rather than tone down 1 thing. If you buff all other ARs then you run the risk of making ARs overpowered in relation to other weapon types and have to consider a chain reaction of buffing all other weapon types-- which makes the game easier-- which means you have to consider buffing enemies.

It's just really sad to see a game with boatloads of kits and weapons boiled down to a handful that see actual use. 

This post is a win. +1 for you good sir.

This is the data I'm refering to:



You can also get it here

@The guy above: The pro-nerf fraction is not some kind of anti-fun-gestapo. It is a pro-variety fraction.

Modifié par GeneralMoskvin_2.0, 10 mars 2013 - 05:14 .

[Pathetisad]

The harrier is balanced.

It's power is handicapped by you haveing to run from ammo crate to ammo crate 20 or so times per wave

[born2beagator]

Say the PPR or another AR weapon was the most used. By your flawed logic you would be whining for a nerf there too. This is what I hate about these data releases. It gives the whiners something to whine about

[ThelLastTruePatriot]

the bloody hell is so challenging about the mattock besides seeing how long you can hold out before getting repetitive stress syndrome?

[FeralJester616]

Riot Inducer wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

Riot Inducer wrote...

It's overused because there are too few alternatives that offer similar handling and power. I fully expect the Lancer to take a chunk out of the Harrier's popularity once more people start getting it.

And that's the thingy. It is an AR with sooooooooo much punch. Totally declasses some burst fire and semi-auto-weapons and as we all know these should offer a good niche between rapid fire and heavy damage. It deals more damage than the fricking Mattock despite the desc clearly says it does not. I am happy that the Lancer is pretty much a counterweapon to it, but still....every AR should be viable. Not just these two and the PPR/Brophoon on some stagger resistant classes.

Well yes, lower tier ARs need some love, especially the full auto ones. They're either outclassed by SMGs of the same rarity or completely outclassed by UR ARs. Thing is, I don't believe nerfing the Harrier will suddenly make the Collector AR or Phaeston the go-to guns, the underperforming ARs need some buffs.

Myself and a few others have been saying this for ages. Most of the ARs feel like little more than extra heavy SMGs. 
Saber is more like an SR, Typhoon is an LMG. but the Harrier is the only one that feels like a true AR.

[MittelBienchen2]

"Right tool for the job" - This for me is the most important message to get out of the graphs referring to the Harrier, the Acolyte and the Hurricane.

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

born2beagator wrote...

Say the PPR or another AR weapon was the most used. By your flawed logic you would be whining for a nerf there too. This is what I hate about these data releases. It gives the whiners something to whine about

I would not because these are extremely stun-dependent.

Harrier is just point, click, dead. 

As I said, I am not whining. I just want variety. A precise ME2-like Vindicator without that horrible muzzle climb, an argus that is a shotgun-AR hybrid (which it actually is, and it is a pretty good weapon), an accurate Marksman Mattock with high damage, a Saber with INSANE DAMAGE.

That's where I would like to see this game. I'd prefer a buff to all ARs except the URs (except for the saber) instead of nerfing one weapon, but you surely saw that "Why nerfing is not that bad"-thread....can't find it atm. :/

[BlackDahlia424]

SavagelyEpic wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

SavagelyEpic wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...
It deals more damage than the fricking Mattock despite the desc clearly says it does not.

It does the same, actually.

On X, yes. On the levels below, it does more.

Well yes, but let's be frank: who doesn't have a Mattock X? The thing's an uncommon.

And Harrier X's aren't exactly common.

How many people can tap their fire button at a rate of 550 RPM consistantly all match while being accurate? I'd guess very few.

My problem with the Harrier is that it simply makes too many ARs obsolete. I'm fine with the common/uncommons being outclassed, but guns like the Valkyrie, Argus, Revenant, etc. shouldn't be so outclassed that a Harrier I is always the better choice.

Those guns need buffs to make them at least a viable alternative.

[Miniditka77]

The Harrier is overused because it's has been the only decent full-auto assault rifle in the game, and if people want to use an AR, they have to use a Harrier or else gimp their own performance.  By comparison, there are tons of good shotguns, so people use different ones based on their preferences.  Thankfully, the Lancer appears to be decent as well, but it will take a while before its usage catches up to the Harrier.  I would gladly use the Lancer over the Harrier, but the RNG store has not deemed me worthy of one yet.

EDIT:  re the Mattock - I probably do about 500 DPS with the Mattock.  I'm on a Console and I can probably only pull the trigger at 250-300 RPM at best.  The Mattock is great in theory, but its effectiveness is based 95% on how fast you can pull the trigger.  It simply isn't an option for me, and I would actually do better with the Vindicator or Phaeston.  The Valkyrie is a decent gun, but it's not full-auto.

Modifié par Miniditka77, 10 mars 2013 - 05:26 .

[Melzfaze1]

Bio were plz..... I have nothing better to do than make up another Nerf thread... omg people that use the harrier is game breaking (aka they outscore me and make me butthurt)... Nerf Nerf Nerf Nerf.

[Dist0rt3d Hum0r]

born2beagator wrote...

Dist0rt3d Hum0r wrote...
I wouldln't mind seeing a small buff to its reserve ammo, or maybe a nerf to the firing rate and a buff to damage? Or a buff to ammo capacity and a nerf to damage to balance it out?

Nope.  Doesn't need anything.  The ammo clip is what keeps it balanced.  Its perfect the way it is.

This is why I suggested that if the clip were buffed, then a nerf to either the damage or RoF should also follow.

[Tankcommander]

Rucent wrote...

If 90% of the AR's didn't suck, that might not be the case. Also, it is perfectly balanced.

[UnknownMercenary]

you fellas keep using your Harrier

I'll be here, having way more fun with the Lancer and Typhoon

[MittelBienchen2]

The Harrier is the right tool for the job as Bioware states it officially.

A pity is that I still only have it on II and I do not see this increasing soon.

[born2beagator]

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

born2beagator wrote...

Say the PPR or another AR weapon was the most used. By your flawed logic you would be whining for a nerf there too. This is what I hate about these data releases. It gives the whiners something to whine about

I would not because these are extremely stun-dependent.

Harrier is just point, click, dead. 

As I said, I am not whining. I just want variety. A precise ME2-like Vindicator without that horrible muzzle climb, an argus that is a shotgun-AR hybrid (which it actually is, and it is a pretty good weapon), an accurate Marksman Mattock with high damage, a Saber with INSANE DAMAGE.

That's where I would like to see this game. I'd prefer a buff to all ARs except the URs (except for the saber) instead of nerfing one weapon, but you surely saw that "Why nerfing is not that bad"-thread....can't find it atm. :/

You are whining.

and yeah i did.  I agree that sometimes nerfs are needed when a weapon is game breakingly good.  What I do not agree with and find frustrating is the constant outcrys for nerfs when they are not needed. This is one of those times.  The harrier absolutly does not need a nerf.  Also I think this thread is pointless.  If the harrier has been nerfed by now other than the weight nerf, its not going to be nerfed

[GeneralMoskvin_2.0]

BlackDahlia424 wrote...

SavagelyEpic wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

SavagelyEpic wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...
It deals more damage than the fricking Mattock despite the desc clearly says it does not.

It does the same, actually.

On X, yes. On the levels below, it does more.

Well yes, but let's be frank: who doesn't have a Mattock X? The thing's an uncommon.

And Harrier X's aren't exactly common.

How many people can tap their fire button at a rate of 550 RPM consistantly all match while being accurate? I'd guess very few.

My problem with the Harrier is that it simply makes too many ARs obsolete. I'm fine with the common/uncommons being outclassed, but guns like the Valkyrie, Argus, Revenant, etc. shouldn't be so outclassed that a Harrier I is always the better choice.

Those guns need buffs to make them at least a viable alternative.

Yet another one who has arguments. Good one, sir.

[born2beagator]

Dist0rt3d Hum0r wrote...

born2beagator wrote...

Dist0rt3d Hum0r wrote...
I wouldln't mind seeing a small buff to its reserve ammo, or maybe a nerf to the firing rate and a buff to damage? Or a buff to ammo capacity and a nerf to damage to balance it out?

Nope.  Doesn't need anything.  The ammo clip is what keeps it balanced.  Its perfect the way it is.

This is why I suggested that if the clip were buffed, then a nerf to either the damage or RoF should also follow.

I'd rather high damage and a low clip.  again, leave it alone 

[born2beagator]

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

BlackDahlia424 wrote...

SavagelyEpic wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...

SavagelyEpic wrote...

GeneralMoskvin_2.0 wrote...
It deals more damage than the fricking Mattock despite the desc clearly says it does not.

It does the same, actually.

On X, yes. On the levels below, it does more.

Well yes, but let's be frank: who doesn't have a Mattock X? The thing's an uncommon.

And Harrier X's aren't exactly common.

How many people can tap their fire button at a rate of 550 RPM consistantly all match while being accurate? I'd guess very few.

My problem with the Harrier is that it simply makes too many ARs obsolete. I'm fine with the common/uncommons being outclassed, but guns like the Valkyrie, Argus, Revenant, etc. shouldn't be so outclassed that a Harrier I is always the better choice.

Those guns need buffs to make them at least a viable alternative.

Yet another one who has arguments. Good one, sir.

read them again.  he isn't whining for a nerf like you.  Nerfing the harrier will not make people use the weaker ARs

[Locutus_of_BORG]

*whocares*

Before the Lancer, the Harrier was the ONLY assault rifle that worked on a non-specialized build. Sure the Lancer's changed that but you have to actually OWN one in order to start using it and it's not exactly easy to get.

[U Bite My Pillow]

Rhayak wrote...

Dammit i still have to unlock it >

How's the Lancer tho, compared to the CSMG? I only tried it on the DLC but of course that's not indicative.

Lets put it this way my Harrier X is now a paper weight thanks to my Lancer IX. At X the Lancer with a Mag Upgrade has 102 round Mag... 102... That's more than the Harrier X's spare ammo count. Wicked fast Rechage delay and rate. Recoil = to a Phaeston without a Stability Mod. Damage is = Typhoon but the Lancer does more damage to health. Accuracy is decent enough.

[JPN17]

If you don't like the Harrier then don't use it. No reason to get upset at the people who do.

[etm125]

born2beagator wrote...

Say the PPR or another AR weapon was the most used. By your flawed logic you would be whining for a nerf there too. This is what I hate about these data releases. It gives the whiners something to whine about

It'd be nice to see a percentage of use. There will obviously always be a #1 most used weapon. If it's by a few percentage, cool, whatever. If it's by like 20-30%, I think we might have a problem.

Also, the fact that the destroyer is #1 is absolutely jaw dropping. Question: How is it the TGI is the #2 most used kit, and is an infiltrator, but infiltrator doesn't even crack the top 3 most used classes?

Lastly, almost half of all collector games end in failure......
.....
....
.
wtf are people doing?

Modifié par etm125, 10 mars 2013 - 05:30 .

[born2beagator]

JPN17 wrote...

If you don't like the Harrier then don't use it. No reason to get upset at the people who do.

I think this guy just wanted some attention today

[born2beagator]

etm125 wrote...

born2beagator wrote...

Say the PPR or another AR weapon was the most used. By your flawed logic you would be whining for a nerf there too. This is what I hate about these data releases. It gives the whiners something to whine about

It'd be nice to see a percentage of use. There will obviously always be a #1 most used weapon. If it's by a few percentage, cool, whatever. If it's by like 20-30%, I think we might have a problem.

Also, the fact that the destroyer is #1 is absolutely jaw dropping. Question: How is it the TGI is the #2 most used kit, and is an infiltrator, but infiltrator doesn't even crack the top 3 most used classes?

i personally don't use the harrier unless I am playing a demolisher, so a nerf to it really wouldn't effect me.  I am just SICK of nerfs to a co-op game when they aren't needed.