11143 réponses à ce sujet

[dumdum2]

Max Dmian wrote...

It's simple math like me0120 already said. 25% increase in base damage = 25% increase in DPS. Period.
Doesn't matter how high or low the base damage is because the RoF doesn't change.
And a Valkyrie I does far more damage than an Avenger X, not really a good comparison.

I don't think you guys are getting my point. Say a weapon does 100 DPS and another does 200 DPS, a 25% increase of the first weapon would result in 125 DPS and a 25% increase of the second weapon would result in 250 DPS. Even though the scale of 25% is the same the total damage increase in numbers are 25 DPS more in the second weapon. The difference in percentage between the both weapons are the same but the actual damage increase is not.

Since the actual damage increase in terms of numbers is larger on the second weapon it would therefore produce a more noticeable increase in performance.

Modifié par dumdum2, 18 juin 2013 - 11:02 .

[Max Dmian]

dumdum2 wrote...

Max Dmian wrote...

It's simple math like me0120 already said. 25% increase in base damage = 25% increase in DPS. Period.
Doesn't matter how high or low the base damage is because the RoF doesn't change.
And a Valkyrie I does far more damage than an Avenger X, not really a good comparison.

I don't think you guys are getting my point. Say a weapon does 100 DPS and another does 200 DPS, a 25% increase of the first weapon would result in 125 DPS and a 25% increase of the second weapon would result in 250 DPS. Even though the scale of 25% is the same the total damage increase in numbers are 25 DPS more in the second weapon. The difference in percentage between the both weapons are the same but the actual damage increase is not.

Since the actual damage increase in terms of numbers is larger on the second weapon it would therefore produce a more noticeable increase in performance.

I didn't know we were debating the very basics of mathematics. Yes, 25% of 200 is more than 25% of 100.
Yes, this also means the absolute damage increase from a Valkyrie I to a Valkyrie X is higher than the increase from an Avenger I to an Avenger X.

The increase in performance is still not "more noticeable" in terms of numbers.
An Avenger X will theoretically kill your enemies 25% faster than an Avenger I and a Valkyrie X will kill enemies 25% faster than a Valkyrie I. A POS will be a slightly less pitiful POS and a good gun becomes a very good gun.

Players with a Valkyrie I are (theoretically) gonna need 25% longer with the Solo challenge than players with a Valkyrie X. If people were to use, say, a Mattock, a solo with a Mattock X would (theoretically) take 25% longer than with a Mattock I.

Since this was your initial concern:
The absolute damage difference between Valkyrie I and Valkyrie X does not matter at all. 

Modifié par Max Dmian, 18 juin 2013 - 11:36 .

[JewelsWinnfield]

I like the new challenge. There are many different possible builds for this setup, so this should be an interesting week. My first attempt with the cryo soldier resulted in a fail at the end of Wave 10. The time was 25:14 with two hacks and an escort.

Loadout:
Geth Scanner
Cryo Ammo IV
Power Amplifier IV
Assault Rilfe Rail Amp III

I didn't use Grenade Capacity because I wanted to have either the Geth Scanner or a high Cyclonic for survivability. Since I'm low on Cyclonics and a Power Amp makes perfectly sense for a power focused build, I had to take the Scanner with me. White Hazard is a grenade rich map anyway, so I rarely ran out of grenades.

I'm gonna try it again with Disruptor Ammo an Adrenaline Rush tonight to see what build works better for me. However, I don't think sub 30 should be a problem with either of those builds.

[dumdum2]

Max Dmian wrote...

An Avenger X will theoretically kill your enemies 25% faster than an Avenger I and a Valkyrie X will kill enemies 25% faster than a Valkyrie I. A POS will be a slightly less pitiful POS and a good gun becomes a very good gun.

I never said anything else now did I? 

Think outside the box for a second. Enemies do not have infinite health but is based on a fixed number, therefore 25% will never truly be accurate and numerical damage increase would be different from a percentual damage increase.

Take the Javelin for instance, on level 1 we say that I can 2 shot a certain enemy (with reload time in between) and on level 10 I can 1 shot the same enemy. Is going from 2 shots to 1 shot a 25% performance increase or is it more? A 25% performance increase from 2 shots would be 1.5 shots, so basically the Javelin levels up "faster" because you would be able to get the required numerical damage increase that would increase performance by 25%  for this specific enemy at level 5. Other weapons you might be required to level up all the way to level 10 before you can be able to 1 shot this enemy.

Let me explain by giving an example:

- We have a Guardian on Silver (1350 health)
- We have a level 1 Javelin that deals 1236.6 damage
- We compare it with a level 1 Widow that deals 997 damage
- Both of the weapons can go through the Guardians shield without getting a damage penalty
- Both weapons need 2 shots to kill the Guardian
- At level 10 the Javelin will deal 1545.8 damage
- At level 10 the Widow will deal 1246.3 damage
- At level 10 the Javelin will need 1 shot to kill the Guardian
- At level 10 the Widow will still need 2 shots to kill the Guardian

The conclusion is that because the numerical increase of the Widow was not as large as it was for the Javelin it would not be able to 1 shot the Guardian. The Javelin could 1 shot the Guardian at level 5 already, thus it only needed 5 levels to gain 25% perfomance increase in this case while the Widow had gained 0% performance increase at level 10 against the Guardian.

If the Guardian would have had infinite health then both weapons would see a performance increase of 25% at level 10, but since it had fixed health the Javelin got a 25% performance increase already at level 5 but the Widow gained nothing.

[Max Dmian]

That's why I explicitly said "theoretically".

Your example is understandable but still doesn't apply in this case.
Your initial point was that the Valkyrie's damage increase is one of the highest - which it simply isn't, relative nor absolute.

And the Valkyrie is a semi-automatic weapon with a high enough RoF and clip-size that it will have a performance increase similar to an automatic weapon.
Your example (which doesn't count in weapon damage passives) only applies to weapons with low clip size, like single/dual shot Sniper Rifles/Shotguns.
You won't need more than one clip to kill mook level enemies.

Let me say it again:
The absolute damage difference between Valkyrie I and Valkyrie X does not matter at all. It would, if it was a single shot Sniper Rifle - but it isn't. You said the damage increase is one of the highest - it isn't.

Modifié par Max Dmian, 18 juin 2013 - 01:07 .

[dumdum2]

Max Dmian wrote...

Your initial point was that the Valkyrie's damage increase is one of the highest - which it simply isn't, relative nor absolute.

Well, I only have it a level V so I have not yet seen its full potential. Thought it was garbage when I tried it a level I but at level V it feels quite decent and I've heard from other players that it is a beast at level X.

And yes, your example was theoretically and mine was a very limited case scenario, so it will not be valid in all cases but it served to prove a point 

About the Valkyrie though, I haven't played for 5 months and when I was playing regulary in the past the last thing I heard was that the Valkyrie had a 25% increase between level I-X but that the scaling was lower at the first levels and higher at the later levels than other weapons but that it would still end up at 25% at level X. That's what I heard 5 months ago, that it scaled unevenly with less damage scaling at low level and higher damage scaling at higher level. But the responses here made me want to have a debate that was different from the scaling itself.

If it does scale evenly through all levels then I was wrong and I stand corrected 

[HeroicMass]

the valkyrie is still pretty bad at X

[dumdum2]

heroicmass wrote...

the valkyrie is still pretty bad at X

Really? According to the videos that HardcoreSalmon posted about him doing weapon testing (he only had it at level II but everything else at X) it performed really well compared to other assault rifles.

Why is it bad at X in your opinion?

[Ziegrif]

Hendrix137 wrote...

I like the new challenge. There are many different possible builds for this setup, so this should be an interesting week. My first attempt with the cryo soldier resulted in a fail at the end of Wave 10. The time was 25:14 with two hacks and an escort.

Loadout:
Geth Scanner
Cryo Ammo IV
Power Amplifier IV
Assault Rilfe Rail Amp III

I didn't use Grenade Capacity because I wanted to have either the Geth Scanner or a high Cyclonic for survivability. Since I'm low on Cyclonics and a Power Amp makes perfectly sense for a power focused build, I had to take the Scanner with me. White Hazard is a grenade rich map anyway, so I rarely ran out of grenades.

I'm gonna try it again with Disruptor Ammo an Adrenaline Rush tonight to see what build works better for me. However, I don't think sub 30 should be a problem with either of those builds.

Ok how the hell is it possible to get to 25 mins at wave 10 with a cryo set up?
How did you handle the Atlases? Just straight out grenade spam and round robin style kill mooks before focusing on Atlases?

Oh and btw what's the ratio of mooks to Atlas in wave composition I.e how many nemeses and other mooks do I need to kill so the Atlas is the last thing left on the map?

The Atlas is seriously the only real problem in this solo if everything goes well.

Modifié par Ziegrif, 18 juin 2013 - 01:50 .

[me0120]

You can use one of the links in cyonan's signature to find out wave budget and budget cost per character. If you have a phantom killing class it's by far the fastest way to deplete the budget since they have a high "budget cost : health" ratio.

[CoffeeHolic93]

Completion time: 35:07

Lesson Learned: I hate that gun.

Second lesson Learned: Oh right, I have thermal packs... Would have made the match much, much shorter.

Video is encoding now.

[me0120]

https://docs.google....der=false&gid=3

This is the best I can do for you while I'm mobile ziegrif.

[Prestacious]

MasterReefa wrote...

I got stabbed on wave 9 at 28 minutes, on a ramp.

On a ramp.  

It'll really be interesting to see the different kits and set-ups people are using for this challenge. Although it will theoretically take longer for someone with a Valkyrie I, time is not really the major focus with these challenges (it's a nice friendly competitive aspect) but it's more about getting them done, and after all it's theme based - Shep's clone apparently officially only equips the Valkyrie as soldier class.

Back to the challenge though...I see other people are struggling with it as much as I was yesterday! I'm going to re-spec and get er done tonight!

@me0120: updated your name on the Leaderboard. thx

Modifié par Prestacious, 18 juin 2013 - 02:32 .

[Prestacious]

Mi-Chan wrote...

Completion time: 35:07

Lesson Learned: I hate that gun.

Second lesson Learned: Oh right, I have thermal packs... Would have made the match much, much shorter.

Video is encoding now.

Congrats! Impressive!! Looking forward to the vid

[HeroicMass]

dumdum2 wrote...

heroicmass wrote...

the valkyrie is still pretty bad at X

Really? According to the videos that HardcoreSalmon posted about him doing weapon testing (he only had it at level II but everything else at X) it performed really well compared to other assault rifles.

Why is it bad at X in your opinion?

It is simply another gun that is good against mooks, but terrible against bosses.  It feels out of place to me is all, especially for its weight.

[JewelsWinnfield]

@Ziegrif: I nuked most Atlases when I had the feeling that the budget was depleted. However, it doesn't take forever to kill Atlases conventionally either. Shoot at their weakpoints, spam CS and a couple of nades when their Shields are down.

Modifié par Hendrix137, 18 juin 2013 - 02:25 .

[Ziegrif]

Hendrix137 wrote...

@Ziegrif: I nuked most Atlases when I had the feeling that the budget was depleted. However, it doesn't take forever to kill Atlases conventionally either. Shoot at their weakpoints, spam CS and a couple of nades when their Shields are down.

That's the problem with Cryo and a level 4 Valk.
I do flea bites at the Atlas shields.

[Caineghis2500]

heroicmass wrote...

the valkyrie is still pretty bad at X

I agree.I aim for the head 95% of the time when I use it

[Prestacious]

Ziegrif wrote...

Hendrix137 wrote...

@Ziegrif: I nuked most Atlases when I had the feeling that the budget was depleted. However, it doesn't take forever to kill Atlases conventionally either. Shoot at their weakpoints, spam CS and a couple of nades when their Shields are down.

That's the problem with Cryo and a level 4 Valk.
I do flea bites at the Atlas shields.

I found myself barely using my gun on atlases, just spamming CS and nades. I basically saved the nades for the atlases.

[JewelsWinnfield]

Am I allowed to use the BF3 soldier if I don't spec into Carnage? It's basically a HSol and I don't wanna waste another respec card.

[Prestacious]

Hendrix137 wrote...

Am I allowed to use the BF3 soldier if I don't spec into Carnage? It's basically a HSol and I don't wanna waste another respec card.

I had earlier said no to Ziegrif, but I guess for both of you, if you don't use carnage then it's the same thing right? That's fine with me (sorry if that made you use a re-spec Ziegrif).