118 réponses à ce sujet

[Matthias King]

I don't care if this is a troll thread or not. I'll bite.

 

I'm not crazy about the Revenant, but I'm not that fond of the Typhoon either.

 

But I actually do prefer the Mattock to the Harrier though. I got my manifest maxed a long time ago, and I got the Harrier to X before several of the others. For a while after getting it to X, I used it a lot, but after a while I quit using it altogether. I just don't like the way the Harrier works or the way it feels.

 

The Mattock has lower DPS and I know that, but I still prefer it. I love its pinpoint accuracy, and I actually prefer semi-auto. I like the control and I don't mind pulling the trigger for every shot. In fact I prefer it and I wish all applicable weapons were selective fire on the fly.

[Indoctornated]

^ Do you have the shoulder triggers configuration set to claw mode or default?

[Matthias King]

I don't know what any of that means.

[My other account is banned]

I don't care if this is a troll thread or not. I'll bite.

 

I'm not crazy about the Revenant, but I'm not that fond of the Typhoon either.

 

But I actually do prefer the Mattock to the Harrier though. I got my manifest maxed a long time ago, and I got the Harrier to X before several of the others. For a while after getting it to X, I used it a lot, but after a while I quit using it altogether. I just don't like the way the Harrier works or the way it feels.

 

The Mattock has lower DPS and I know that, but I still prefer it. I love its pinpoint accuracy, and I actually prefer semi-auto. I like the control and I don't mind pulling the trigger for every shot. In fact I prefer it and I wish all applicable weapons were selective fire on the fly.

 

I'm guessing you come from a more PvP or at least shooter background. I do like the feel of the Mattock more than the Harrier myself. Usually in proper shooter games, using a semi-auto rifle would reward you with higher DPS than a full auto rifle like the Harrier because it takes more skill to master, but not ME3 though... 

 

Stiil, I've always felt there is something more rewarding about the Mattock than the Harrier, probably from my tendancy to like semi autos more than full autos in past games.

[Indoctornated]

I don't know what any of that means.

 

Default or Default Swapped for Shooting Configuration, I think it's called. Basically it is easier to tap the bumper buttons VS the trigger buttons. One PS3 it's actually swapped from the 360 default shooting configuration. At first on PS3 I set it to 360 style, but now I set it to PS3 default as well, mainly because the bumper buttons on PS3 are even harder for rapid tapping then the 360 bumper buttons.

 

Only issue with keeping each console on default, is it taking me some time to re-adjust each time I switch which console I play ME3mp on. ie. I pull my rocket out because it's an emergency and I'm surrounded, only to keep tapping the power button until I finally realize it. But by then it's to late. Rage Gel > Rocket spam usually then ensues.

[Quarian Master Race]

I'm guessing you come from a more PvP or at least shooter background. I do like the feel of the Mattock more than the Harrier myself. Usually in proper shooter games, using a semi-auto rifle would reward you with higher DPS than a full auto rifle like the Harrier because it takes more skill to master, but not ME3 though... 

 

Stiil, I've always felt there is something more rewarding about the Mattock than the Harrier, probably from my tendancy to like semi autos more than full autos in past games.

eh, maybe not higher DPS, but most semiautos in FPSs can get lower TTK via headshots, and may have reduced random spread or other advantages that help them in mid-long range. Depends upon the specific game you are talking about.

I generally prefer said weapon classes in those games (DMRs, Battle Rifles etc) which is probably why the Saber and Mattock are two of my favourites in the assault rifle class, and I also like the Raptor (which seems to get hated for the same reason as the Mattock even though it's also quite good for an uncommon).

The Harrier is undeniably effective, but it isn't as fun to use. It is far too stable and accurate for how hard it hits. Even the Phaeston has more kick to it. It doesn't feel like the types of weapons I am used to in Battlefield, Killzone, CS etc. You just hold the trigger until its empty and repeat ad infinitum, and everything in front of you dies with no management of recoil or spread necessary. I actually do prefer the Mattock, and use it much more and on a greater variety of characters.

Plus I think it looks and sounds better.

[Matthias King]

I'm guessing you come from a more PvP or at least shooter background. I do like the feel of the Mattock more than the Harrier myself. Usually in proper shooter games, using a semi-auto rifle would reward you with higher DPS than a full auto rifle like the Harrier because it takes more skill to master, but not ME3 though... 

 

Stiil, I've always felt there is something more rewarding about the Mattock than the Harrier, probably from my tendancy to like semi autos more than full autos in past games.

 

Yea, I've been a shooter game player for a long time. I'm much more a fan of precise shooting than spray and pray. One of my favorite full-auto weapons is the Phaeston, and that's because it, along with the Avenger, work more like a traditional full-auto assault rifle than most any other rifle in the game. And as such, you can burst fire it if you want to. You can't really make it do semi-auto unfortunately, but you can use short, controlled bursts, which I often do, especially on infantry level enemies.

 

That's one of the reasons I can't really click with the Typhoon. It has some great benefits, but that stupid ramp-up mechanic (which makes exactly zero logical sense) prohibits burst firing.

 

And something people may or may not realize is that in real life, soldiers in combat don't go full-auto most of the time. Full-auto is mostly for suppressing fire rather than putting on a target. More often than not they have their rifles set to semi-auto. It conserves ammo and discourages them from just blasting away. It's also much better for accuracy.

 

So for those reasons, I prefer the Mattock. That and I love the way it sounds. In the right hands, like the Human Soldier, it's still gold viable.
 

[The NightMan Cometh]

I LOVED the Mattock in ME2 ..never tried it in ME3 single player  ( bought me the Carrier DLC 1st) .In multiplayer when using the Mattock..my poor damn trigger finger       T-Sent / T-Sol  only characters I will willingly use it on ( dem Challenge Points Yo )

[Alfonsedode]

OP U made a nice explanation, i might try the revenant again .

Mattock hurts my finger/wrist quite fast

[Deerber]

(which makes exactly zero logical sense)

 

Uhm... And why would that be?

[Indoctornated]

eh, maybe not higher DPS, but most semiautos in FPSs can get lower TTK via headshots, and may have reduced random spread or other advantages that help them in mid-long range. Depends upon the specific game you are talking about.

I generally prefer said weapon classes in those games (DMRs, Battle Rifles etc) which is probably why the Saber and Mattock are two of my favourites in the assault rifle class, and I also like the Raptor (which seems to get hated for the same reason as the Mattock even though it's also quite good for an uncommon).

The Harrier is undeniably effective, but it isn't as fun to use. It is far too stable and accurate for how hard it hits. Even the Phaeston has more kick to it. It doesn't feel like the types of weapons I am used to in Battlefield, Killzone, CS etc. You just hold the trigger until its empty and repeat ad infinitum, and everything in front of you dies with no management of recoil or spread necessary. I actually do prefer the Mattock, and use it much more and on a greater variety of characters.

Plus I think it looks and sounds better.

 

There are other shooters besides ME3mp!!!

 

Oh, and Harrier is fun for practicing headshoots. But way too cheap on certain kits. Why it's my fave on Volus Merc.

 

 

And nice that you like the Mattock.

[Matthias King]

@deerber

 

Because no guns actually work that way. They don't today, and they certainly wouldn't 200 years from now. The Typhoon is basically the Mass Effect equivalent of the M249 SAW. It's been in service for thirty years at this point, and it doesn't have to ramp up. And the reason for that is that it's not practical. It needs to fire when you pull the trigger, period. It needs to start spraying that metal right away. The ramp-up has no place.

 

Here's the thing. Weapons are chosen for military service. Sometimes they last a while, then they're replaced with something better. Sometimes they stay in service for a long time and continually upgrade and iterate, like the M16. The thing is, the weapons are produced based on the needs of the warfighters. It's not just some company making something in a vacuum and then handing it to soldiers and saying, 'here's what he have, take it and shut up.' It doesn't work that way. Weapons are produced to meet the needs of soldiers in the field and chosen by a committee based on their viability. And companies compete for contracts to fulfill a need. There are many factors that determine what is chosen, but functionality is a big one. And then there are often 'shootouts,' no pun intended, where multiple options are tested head-to-head from multiple competitors bringing their potential product to the table, vying for the contract. And if it doesn't make the cut, they don't get the contract. They've been trying for some time to find a viable replacement for the M4A1, but haven't found anything yet that is worth the upgrade.

 

With that in mind, I can tell you that the Typhoon never would have even made it that far. Not with that ramp-up mechanic. It would have been rejected outright, and for very good reason.

[Indoctornated]

Yeah, I got what Mathias said.

[Silvair]

so you pick tiny missiles that do nothing but pew pew over #MURCA crowd control power?

can you link me your build,plz?

No I just prefer constant bombardment over having to stay close to ammo boxes.

Also hawks are auto homing, which again, in tandem with Rev causing everything to always scatter, is great.

I almost never pick grenade powers because I can never maintain supplies, especially on a slow kit like devastator destroyer. A Revastator isn't mobile enough to keep running between ammo boxes.

[TheShadyEngineer]

In fact I prefer it and I wish all applicable weapons were selective fire on the fly.

Amen.

 

@deerber

 

Because no guns actually work that way. They don't today, and they certainly wouldn't 200 years from now. The Typhoon is basically the Mass Effect equivalent of the M249 SAW. It's been in service for thirty years at this point, and it doesn't have to ramp up. And the reason for that is that it's not practical. It needs to fire when you pull the trigger, period. It needs to start spraying that metal right away. The ramp-up has no place.

 

Here's the thing. Weapons are chosen for military service. Sometimes they last a while, then they're replaced with something better. Sometimes they stay in service for a long time and continually upgrade and iterate, like the M16. The thing is, the weapons are produced based on the needs of the warfighters. It's not just some company making something in a vacuum and then handing it to soldiers and saying, 'here's what he have, take it and shut up.' It doesn't work that way. Weapons are produced to meet the needs of soldiers in the field and chosen by a committee based on their viability. And companies compete for contracts to fulfill a need. There are many factors that determine what is chosen, but functionality is a big one. And then there are often 'shootouts,' no pun intended, where multiple options are tested head-to-head from multiple competitors bringing their potential product to the table, vying for the contract. And if it doesn't make the cut, they don't get the contract. They've been trying for some time to find a viable replacement for the M4A1, but haven't found anything yet that is worth the upgrade.

 

With that in mind, I can tell you that the Typhoon never would have even made it that far. Not with that ramp-up mechanic. It would have been rejected outright, and for very good reason.

I agree with the point you're trying to make for the most part but I find it ironic that you chose the M16 as an example of 'a weapon produced based on the needs of the warfighters.' Just saying.

[Indoctornated]

Alright, now I'm lost.

[Matthias King]

Actually the M16 was my example of a weapon that had been long-serving and continually modified and upgraded.

[Salarian Master Race]

@deerber

 

Because no guns actually work that way. They don't today, and they certainly wouldn't 200 years from now. The Typhoon is basically the Mass Effect equivalent of the M249 SAW. It's been in service for thirty years at this point, and it doesn't have to ramp up. And the reason for that is that it's not practical. It needs to fire when you pull the trigger, period. It needs to start spraying that metal right away. The ramp-up has no place.

 

Here's the thing. Weapons are chosen for military service. Sometimes they last a while, then they're replaced with something better. Sometimes they stay in service for a long time and continually upgrade and iterate, like the M16. The thing is, the weapons are produced based on the needs of the warfighters. It's not just some company making something in a vacuum and then handing it to soldiers and saying, 'here's what he have, take it and shut up.' It doesn't work that way. Weapons are produced to meet the needs of soldiers in the field and chosen by a committee based on their viability. And companies compete for contracts to fulfill a need. There are many factors that determine what is chosen, but functionality is a big one. And then there are often 'shootouts,' no pun intended, where multiple options are tested head-to-head from multiple competitors bringing their potential product to the table, vying for the contract. And if it doesn't make the cut, they don't get the contract. They've been trying for some time to find a viable replacement for the M4A1, but haven't found anything yet that is worth the upgrade.

 

With that in mind, I can tell you that the Typhoon never would have even made it that far. Not with that ramp-up mechanic. It would have been rejected outright, and for very good reason.

 

Real Life militaries aren't fighting Banshees and Geth Primes though

[Matthias King]

Real Life militaries aren't fighting Banshees and Geth Primes though

 

I'm guessing you meant to contradict my point, but that actually only reinforces it.
 

[Caineghis2500]

Hell no. The revenant is disgustingly jumpy even with all manner of stability buffs and I don't like using single fire ARs

[Cyonan]

I don't mind the Revenant but the Typhoon is better and the Revenant is not an AoE weapon, as that implies that every shot hits in a radius. The Falcon is an AoE weapon.

The Mattock is a good weapon, but if I want to spam click all day long then I'll just play Diablo.

[Silvair]

I don't mind the Revenant but the Typhoon is better and the Revenant is not an AoE weapon, as that implies that every shot hits in a radius. The Falcon is an AoE weapon.
The Mattock is a good weapon, but if I want to spam click all day long then I'll just play Diablo.

On paper its not aoe but in practice you can aim at the lower middle of a mob and the sheer AMOUNT of bullets being sprayed means its guaranteed for multiple headshots. Just don't aim directly at the head.

As for the kickback, its really annoying with mouse and keyboard but really easy to manage with a controller because you can just hold the thumb stick at a slightly downward tilt to offset the recoil while firing. As opposed to mouse where you have to be constantpy moving it down.

[Miniditka77]

I don't care if this is a troll thread or not. I'll bite.

 

I'm not crazy about the Revenant, but I'm not that fond of the Typhoon either.

 

But I actually do prefer the Mattock to the Harrier though. I got my manifest maxed a long time ago, and I got the Harrier to X before several of the others. For a while after getting it to X, I used it a lot, but after a while I quit using it altogether. I just don't like the way the Harrier works or the way it feels.

 

The Mattock has lower DPS and I know that, but I still prefer it. I love its pinpoint accuracy, and I actually prefer semi-auto. I like the control and I don't mind pulling the trigger for every shot. In fact I prefer it and I wish all applicable weapons were selective fire on the fly.

 

To be fair, the Harrier is "selective fire."  Just fire it semi-auto instead of holding the trigger down. 

[Miniditka77]

Hell no. The revenant is disgustingly jumpy even with all manner of stability buffs and I don't like using single fire ARs

 

The Revenant requires hard cover to be effective, IMO.  In fact, I don't think any other gun benefits as much from hard cover as the Revenant.  But, since using hard cover isn't really an effective strategy most of the time, the Revenant isn't very effective most of the time.

[Indoctornated]

Hey, anybody every try the Mattock with turbo fire? I did. Especially on accuracy and rate of fire boosting classes. ... Funny thing about the turbo fire feature is that I only tried it on PS3, and the PS3 would actually sweet and not be able to process all the data. And turbo fire turns into slow fire, with frame loss for added effect. So the question is, is the Mattock to OP for PS3?