110 réponses à ce sujet

[Deerber]

**** it

[Deerber]

Stupid phone.

[panda5onix]

Sure blame the phone 

[Marksmad is waving goodbye]

**** it

 

**** it

 

**** it

 

**** it

 

Stupid phone.

 

Phones are clearly way too OP.

[RustyBuckets02]

Only my sense of my inherint superiority is (rightfully) inflated.

 

Surely this is true of everyone on BSN? (maybe not the rightfully bit).

 

 

Also, the description states it is supposed to do less damage than the mattock per shot, while in reality it doe all quite a bit more.

 

I wouldn't describe this as a bug, more that the descriptions are gloriously unhelpful. Except the one for the Avenger. The Avenger really is OP.

 

How many duplicates of this post do I need to fit in?

[capn233]

It's bugged to where it recieves hard cover stability bonuses while you aren't in cover. Specifically, the values are reversed( use itt on a non turian with no stability mod and try to hit anything while in hard cover)

 

No the out of cover stability penalty is separate from the gun's base values, and is in fact applied correctly in the case of the Harrier.

 

There are two stability values for any weapon: recoil and zoomrecoil

 

Mattock

recoil: 3

zoomrecoil: 1.5

 

Harrier

recoil: 4.5

zoomrecoil: 1.5

 

There are other values between the two weapons that are shared, but for the purpose of this discussion these are all that are needed for now.  Bioware decided to scale the regular recoil value by 1.5x.  Who knows why.

 

The way recoil works is that if you are in cover then your recoil value is always "recoil" no matter if you are zoomed or not. If you are out of cover, the recoil value is "recoil x 1.5" if you are hip firing, or "zoomrecoil x 1.5" if you are zoomed.  If you run the math you will notice that this issue also affects the Mattock, but is not as noticeable because the difference isn't as large and the recoil fade hides some of it.  That is to say, both have out of cover zoom recoil of 2.25, which is lower than 3 and 4.5.

 

Recoil fade values are rates, if it is any value larger than 0, the gun will eventually return to neutral no matter how much recoil there is, as long as you give it time to do so.

 

They almost certainly did not switch the values, and if you simply switch them then you get odd behavior with respect to recoil yaw.

[NuclearTech76]

So you're alive and require inflation?

(I actually don't want to know how that would even work)

BSN segues are overpowered.

 

I came to talk about gaming; I decided to stay because the conversation generally evolves to be anything but gaming.

[capn233]

BSN segues are overpowered.

 

I came to talk about gaming; I decided to stay because the conversation generally evolves to be anything but gaming.

 

We learned that from Shepard.

[Quarian Master Race]

No the out of cover stability penalty is separate from the gun's base values, and is in fact applied correctly in the case of the Harrier.

 

There are two stability values for any weapon: recoil and zoomrecoil

 

Mattock

recoil: 3

zoomrecoil: 1.5

 

Harrier

recoil: 4.5

zoomrecoil: 1.5

 

There are other values between the two weapons that are shared, but for the purpose of this discussion these are all that are needed for now.  Bioware decided to scale the regular recoil value by 1.5x.  Who knows why.

 

The way recoil works is that if you are in cover then your recoil value is always "recoil" no matter if you are zoomed or not. If you are out of cover, the recoil value is "recoil x 1.5" if you are hip firing, or "zoomrecoil x 1.5" if you are zoomed.  If you run the math you will notice that this issue also affects the Mattock, but is not as noticeable because the difference isn't as large and the recoil fade hides some of it.  That is to say, both have out of cover zoom recoil of 2.25, which is lower than 3 and 4.5.

 

Recoil fade values are rates, if it is any value larger than 0, the gun will eventually return to neutral no matter how much recoil there is, as long as you give it time to do so.

 

They almost certainly did not switch the values, and if you simply switch them then you get odd behavior with respect to recoil yaw.

Is there any reason why the two weapons were given intentionally idiotic out of cover values (other than Biovar "working as intended")? I can't think of any other in game weapons with this sort of behavior.

[lightswitch]

Is there any reason why the two weapons were given intentionally idiotic out of cover values (other than Biovar "working as intended")? I can't think of any other in game weapons with this sort of behavior.

 

I suspect it's because originally Bioware presumed people would actually be using the hard cover mechanic - it was how the game was designed to be played after all. Assuming this is true, then they probably believed reversing the values was actually a nerf. So they basically they knew the Harrier was just too good and this was a misguided attempt to neuter it. 

 

It still doesn't really make sense, but it's the best I can come up with. I mean why not just increase the recoil across the board? I guess maybe they felt that soft-cover playstyles would be high-risk, so giving those players a easier handling weapon would be balanced by the inherent dangers of that playstyle (lol). But who knows really.

 

If any of this is true well then geez they really had no clue, but what can you do. The meta of this game, multiplayer in particular, has really just been a non-stop stream of the players using things and abusing mechanics in ways the devs never intended or even dreamed possible, so this wouldn't be all that different.

[Kurt M.]

Not really, no. I actually find it fun to poke useless scrubs like you around

 

The "FY" word is strong in you