85 réponses à ce sujet

[Major Durza]

Stimpo wrote...

chipsandwich wrote...

What this board really needs is an M-7 Lancer vs N7 Valkyrie analysis. Both of them have comparable weight, accuracy and DPS, one has infinite ammo and the other does more headshot damage. However, one of them is considered da best and the other is considered a troll weapon. So which one is it gonna be?

lancer weighs roughly 2/3 of the valk, so i wouldn't say the weight is "comparable" really. I'm not saying the valk is heavy, but lancer def has an advantage for a power spammy class. That being said, I think the lancer is hyped a bit too much. I lurv it, but it isn't a god-gun. Nicely balanced, convenient AR.

Valkyrie weighs as much as a Harrier(much to my annoyance), so the difference is about less than half a second on most classes.
The Lancer is nicely balanced, why I am comparing it to a more controversial weapon.  The Lancer is balanced and well loved, the Harrier is slightly unbalanced and controversial.  People are not calling for a nerf to the Lancer, because we have been waiting for a weapon of the sorts for a long time... we've just had to make do with the Harrier and think that the reason it is so much better than everything else is because it is a true AR.

But it is a bit too powerful for a true AR, as the Lancer shows.

And as Dnought pointed out, it exaggerates even more that the Valkyrie is a POS.

[d_nought]

Major Durza wrote...

Stimpo wrote...

chipsandwich wrote...

What this board really needs is an M-7 Lancer vs N7 Valkyrie analysis. Both of them have comparable weight, accuracy and DPS, one has infinite ammo and the other does more headshot damage. However, one of them is considered da best and the other is considered a troll weapon. So which one is it gonna be?

lancer weighs roughly 2/3 of the valk, so i wouldn't say the weight is "comparable" really. I'm not saying the valk is heavy, but lancer def has an advantage for a power spammy class. That being said, I think the lancer is hyped a bit too much. I lurv it, but it isn't a god-gun. Nicely balanced, convenient AR.

Valkyrie weighs as much as a Harrier(much to my annoyance), so the difference is about less than half a second on most classes.
The Lancer is nicely balanced, why I am comparing it to a more controversial weapon.  The Lancer is balanced and well loved, the Harrier is slightly unbalanced and controversial.  People are not calling for a nerf to the Lancer, because we have been waiting for a weapon of the sorts for a long time... we've just had to make do with the Harrier and think that the reason it is so much better than everything else is because it is a true AR.

But it is a bit too powerful for a true AR, as the Lancer shows.

And as Dnought pointed out, it exaggerates even more that the Valkyrie is a POS.

eh, i guess i didn't pay too much attention to the weight of the Harrier.

Valkyrie could use a weight buff i guess.

[iOnlySignIn]

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

Modifié par iOnlySignIn, 12 mars 2013 - 05:52 .

[Major Durza]

chipsandwich wrote...

Major Durza wrote...

Stimpo wrote...

chipsandwich wrote...

What this board really needs is an M-7 Lancer vs N7 Valkyrie analysis. Both of them have comparable weight, accuracy and DPS, one has infinite ammo and the other does more headshot damage. However, one of them is considered da best and the other is considered a troll weapon. So which one is it gonna be?

lancer weighs roughly 2/3 of the valk, so i wouldn't say the weight is "comparable" really. I'm not saying the valk is heavy, but lancer def has an advantage for a power spammy class. That being said, I think the lancer is hyped a bit too much. I lurv it, but it isn't a god-gun. Nicely balanced, convenient AR.

Valkyrie weighs as much as a Harrier(much to my annoyance), so the difference is about less than half a second on most classes.
The Lancer is nicely balanced, why I am comparing it to a more controversial weapon.  The Lancer is balanced and well loved, the Harrier is slightly unbalanced and controversial.  People are not calling for a nerf to the Lancer, because we have been waiting for a weapon of the sorts for a long time... we've just had to make do with the Harrier and think that the reason it is so much better than everything else is because it is a true AR.

But it is a bit too powerful for a true AR, as the Lancer shows.

And as Dnought pointed out, it exaggerates even more that the Valkyrie is a POS.

eh, i guess i didn't pay too much attention to the weight of the Harrier.

Valkyrie could use a weight buff i guess.

It has a slightly higer DPS than the Lancer in all areas, burst and sustained (pretty sure the spreadsheets are not accounting for mook headshots), and the weight is currently 1.25 at X(lol), lancer is at 0.80.  So buffing the weight drastically I think would put it where it needs to go.  Perhaps down to 1.00(It is promotional, after all, needs to be awesome!) I would venture to say 0.90 even.
Though the difference is not huge, I think it is enough to make me not curse the RNG when I get one in a comm pack.

[Major Durza]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

Its objectively better, do you like having weapons that are objectively better than others?  I don't like having weapons in my arsenal that are completely outdone by others.  I like my choices to be more than illusions, personally, and I like having many viable choices... I do not like choices in this game that are objectively better, its called balance.

Modifié par Major Durza, 12 mars 2013 - 05:58 .

[thatonebigdude]

The numbers don't explain why I like the Lancer. It's all about the feel of the weapon. It feels like an AR should, better than every other AR not named Typhoon or Harrier.

[capn233]

Major Durza wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

Its objectively better, do you like having weapons that are objectively better than others?  I don't like having weapons in my arsenal that are completely outdone by others.  I like my choices to be more than illusions, personally, and I like having many viable choices... I do not like choices in this game that are objectively better, its called balance.

The point being made is that in general the AR class isn't particularly strong.  So when you look at the Harrier's relative strength to other AR's it might be more sensible to buff the other weapons as opposed to nerfing the Harrier.

As far as the Lancer goes specifically, taking everything into account, Lancer and Harrier are fairly well balaned relative to each other.

[CobraJet97]

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

To be fair, all that's being suggested is an addition of weight to the Harrier. Which is pretty tame compared to a lot of threads. And defining the Harrier (and by extension, the Lancer's) niche isn't a negative idea. Pushing it more definitively to a weapon centric play style rather than being the easiest option on every kit. Power based  Kits could still benefit from the Lancer. 

Modifié par CobraJet97, 12 mars 2013 - 06:06 .

[InstaShark]

CobraJet97 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

To be fair, all that's being suggested is an addition of weight to the Harrier. Which is pretty tame compared to a lot of threads. And defining the Harrier (and by extension, the Lancer's) niche isn't a negative idea. Pushing it more definitively to a weapon centric play style rather than being the easiest option on every kit. Power based  Kits could still benefit from the Lancer. 

So, a variant of the Mattock should be heavier than (or as heavy as) a death ray that requires no ammo, then?

Yeah, seems legit.

Modifié par InstaShark, 12 mars 2013 - 06:08 .

[Major Durza]

capn233 wrote...

Major Durza wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

Its objectively better, do you like having weapons that are objectively better than others?  I don't like having weapons in my arsenal that are completely outdone by others.  I like my choices to be more than illusions, personally, and I like having many viable choices... I do not like choices in this game that are objectively better, its called balance.

The point being made is that in general the AR class isn't particularly strong.  So when you look at the Harrier's relative strength to other AR's it might be more sensible to buff the other weapons as opposed to nerfing the Harrier.

As far as the Lancer goes specifically, taking everything into account, Lancer and Harrier are fairly well balaned relative to each other.

My point is that it is not.  Lancer has ammo and a slight weight advantage, that's it.  Harrier wins comfortably in every other way

Lancer is where I want the AR class at, not roflstomping the other weapon categories, but on par.

I hae been a big proponent of buffing the AR class.  In particular the Argus (ROF doubled, weight cut by a bit, accuracy improved) Revenant (accuracy) Striker (Defense modifiers) GPR(Shield modifier) to name a few.  The Harrier is not a good standard, if everything was as good as a Harrier there would be no reason to take pistols, snipers or SMG's except for a less than half a second on cooldown.  There is a reason the Harrier works well on everything, better than the Claymore.  The claymore at least cripples cooldowns, the Harrier barely touches them, giving any class power without really diminishing its potential otherwise

[Major Durza]

InstaShark wrote...

CobraJet97 wrote...

iOnlySignIn wrote...

Right. Let's nerf the best Assault Rifle in this game instead of buffing the others.

Because Assault Rifles are so overpowered compared to Shotguns.

To be fair, all that's being suggested is an addition of weight to the Harrier. Which is pretty tame compared to a lot of threads. And defining the Harrier (and by extension, the Lancer's) niche isn't a negative idea. Pushing it more definitively to a weapon centric play style rather than being the easiest option on every kit. Power based  Kits could still benefit from the Lancer. 

So, a variant of the Mattock should be heavier than (or as heavy as) a death ray that requires no ammo, then?

Yeah, seems legit.

As heavy as a Saber, yes.
Note that many would think twice to put a Saber on a QME, but a Harrier is not even a question.

Incidentally you have a good idea for a PPR nerf, there...
Don't worry, In terms of that niche, I beleive the other two need to be buffed.  Typhoon needs its 1.75 modifier, and the Spitfire needs its ROF fixed before we can see what it can do.

I am afraid I do not fit your definition of crazy nerfduck, I want a lot more things buffed than nerfed... I like a useable arsenal.

Modifié par Major Durza, 12 mars 2013 - 06:13 .

[Ryquist]

Stimpo wrote...

Modifié par RaenImrahl, 12 mars 2013 - 06:15 .

[CobraJet97]

InstaShark wrote...

So, a variant of the Mattock should be heavier than (or as heavy as) a death ray that requires no ammo, then?

Yeah, seems legit.

Im saying that a gun should not be an easy choice whether you choose to play an Asari adept or an N7 Destroyer. I'd love to see buffs to the overall assault rifle category. I think they've been poorly balanced as a group. But increasing the encumbrance of the Harrier does not change the accuracy or damage values that make it an excellent gun. Especially when the niche we're talking about pulling it away from has something comparable to fill that gap. I would argue against lowering the Harriers damage or accuracy. But a weight increase to make bringing it on a power spammer a real decision? I think that's legit. 

[TuringPoint]

 I'd like to have either at X.

What the numbers don't show is how significant a half second can be, or how much that weight difference is for a character that has abilities with a longer cooldown than the abilities you focus on.  With the shorter cooldown abilities the difference is usually not going to be much more significant than half a second.  

This also doesn't show how big a difference it is that with the harrier, you've got to get to that ammo box - which is killer if it's your only weapon.  You also have to take the time to reload, fairly frequently - time that could, instead, be used for casting; and this time spent reloading adds on to that half second of additional cooldown.

The other thing is that smg's and pistols now give a nice advantage over any AR with the power boost.  The boost might not be 'huge,' but it's enough to make a difference, possibly as much or more than having the right weapon would be.

Also, it's just boring to play with the same weapon all the time.

Modifié par Alocormin, 12 mars 2013 - 06:24 .

[longgamma]

Why do you want to nerf a UR assault gun? It takes hours to get the Harrier leveled up and still a player can't enjoy a good AR?

I can understand the nerds for Piranha and krysae as they outclassed all URs being rare guns. But seriously it has pathetic ammo to begin with. Isn't that balanced enough?

[longgamma]

Btw Harrier is a better boss killer than both typhoon and PPR

[InstaShark]

longgamma wrote...

Why do you want to nerf a UR assault gun? It takes hours to get the Harrier leveled up and still a player can't enjoy a good AR?

I can understand the nerds for Piranha and krysae as they outclassed all URs being rare guns. But seriously it has pathetic ammo to begin with. Isn't that balanced enough?

Low (spare) ammo capacity and funky recoil within cover (which is odd). Don't forget the low clip size as well compared to its rate of fire.

Modifié par InstaShark, 12 mars 2013 - 06:30 .

[IIFlash]

Short version
Harrier - damage, accuracy
Lancer - ammo, weight
recoil is subjective

I prefer the Lancer, sacrifice a little damage to save a lot of time running to ammo boxes or camping near them

Modifié par IIFlash, 12 mars 2013 - 06:37 .

[Major Durza]

CobraJet97 wrote...

InstaShark wrote...

So, a variant of the Mattock should be heavier than (or as heavy as) a death ray that requires no ammo, then?

Yeah, seems legit.

Im saying that a gun should not be an easy choice whether you choose to play an Asari adept or an N7 Destroyer. I'd love to see buffs to the overall assault rifle category. I think they've been poorly balanced as a group. But increasing the encumbrance of the Harrier does not change the accuracy or damage values that make it an excellent gun. Especially when the niche we're talking about pulling it away from has something comparable to fill that gap. I would argue against lowering the Harriers damage or accuracy. But a weight increase to make bringing it on a power spammer a real decision? I think that's legit. 

Thank you.  The Lancer is supposed to win in weight and ammo, whereas Harrier is damage, accuracy and stability.  Harrier wins very comfortably in all areas its supposed to, Lancer only really  wins in ammo, it should win more in weight.

[Asebstos]

RedJohn wrote...

You have a good point, but then there is the moment when you run out of ammo with a harrier.

Good thing I have 6 instant reload buttons 

[Major Durza]

IIFlash wrote...

Short version
Harrier - damage, accuracy
Lancer - ammo, weight
recoil is subjective

I prefer the Lancer, sacrifice a little damage to save a lot of time running to ammo boxes or camping near them

Thats not a "little" damage... a Harrier I outDPS's a Lancer X.

[IIFlash]

Major Durza wrote...

IIFlash wrote...

Short version
Harrier - damage, accuracy
Lancer - ammo, weight
recoil is subjective

I prefer the Lancer, sacrifice a little damage to save a lot of time running to ammo boxes or camping near them

Thats not a "little" damage... a Harrier I outDPS's a Lancer X.

Yes Harrier has higher damage output, but this is offset by the fact that you have to either camp on an ammo box, constantly run to an ammo crate, or running between particular ammo crates, you have limited Thermal Clips. Either way the Harrier doing more sustained DPS is entirely dependant on you being able to get enough ammo from the crates. 
Lancer you never need to go to an ammo crate unless you have grenades.

[U Bite My Pillow]

A few flaws In your argument:

Platinum ammo boxes don't like giving ammo, you only receive 60 from them. And hope 2 or more other players aren't running Harriers or you'll never get ammo.

The Lancers recoil is = to a Phaeston, if you can't manage that you might be the problem.

Damage: From all I gather the Lancer does 25% less damage per bullet. However while using one you notice your shooting WAY more than 25% more bullets. "What's through that smoke (unloads 60 rounds)". And why not? The recharge delay and rate are retarded fast.

The biggest appeal is infinite ammo with decent damage to boot without a ramp up. The Lancer X with Extended mag has 102 rounds, that's more than the Harrier has in spare.

Don't forget the recoil bug while in cover with the Harrier, although its more than manageable.

The Lancer completely replaced my Harrier X when it was at IV, now its a X. And I swear I'm doing more damage over the course of an entire match, no reloading, no ammo runs. I can run and gun while spamming powers nonstop.

Modifié par U Bite My Pillow, 12 mars 2013 - 07:04 .

[Elecbender]

longgamma wrote...

Btw Harrier is a better boss killer than both typhoon and PPR

You keep thinking that...

[Cakekey]

I have the Harrier at III and haven't been allowed the Lancer by the ME3 store(after maxing every character, equipment, and most weapon mods, I only have one UR card and it's the BPP), and I look forward to the Lancer specifically because it's the lesser of the two; the Harrier is such an obvious choice for almost any class, having so many strengths while giving up so little in exchange.