But its not just the Acolyte. IMO it is a trinity of easy mode "l2p" weapons: 1. Acolyte, 2. Venom, 3. Reegar. These weapons are "l2p" because they don't require precision aiming to be effective.
Really? With the reegar you actually have to aim straight to the target, its not like it has any radius to it -.-
Krogan you are officially indoctrinated
This thread keeps getting more laughable....This talk of "l2p" vs "elite l2p" weapons. Oh BSN, you so funny! 
The "L" is in wasting any effort trying to get you to broaden the scope of your argument. Much of the thread has been about the problems created by a weapon with too much upside. The reason players should be deprived of such a weapon is the same for any weapon that has either not been released or has been nerfed (as the Acolyte would have been if support would have continued for multiplayer). We've been deprived of any number of weapons in the name of game balance. Many a nerf is still lamented here.
You're over in your corner demanding that I engage a tangent. It's the equivalent of the sophomoric high school debating tactic of asking the opponent a question at the end of your alloted time in the hope that he'll spend his time refuting a red herring instead of making his point. The tactic is best ignored, much like you.
But, hey, if that feels like victory to you, bask in it. But don't be surprised if they don't include a feather-light, super-powered shield-stripper in the next game, for the reasons that have already been discussed (and ignored). Or maybe they'll juggle the mechanics that make the gun so indispensable, I dunno.
Yes, it is very light, but some weapons have a glitched weight. Weapons that should be much heavier. So why is that such a bad thing for the gun in question? The Acolyte is so light because it is actually not super-powered enough to stand alone. If you want to be effective you will need to use it on a kit with some good powers, or bring along a weapon that deal with armor as well. There is nothing wrong with it stripping shields.
Very much how I see it.
I pay hardly any attention to which weapons other players use in a game. I don't mind at all if someone uses it in a game I'm in - usually I don't even notice.
I don't object to Acolyte's use, I object to its existence. I don' t like the effect it had on the evolution of the game (like the Pull example I mentioned earlier). I don't like the effect it has on the metagame. I don't like how it trivializes a number of tactical problems (no that there aren't any other culprits).
For example, I'd love to see people discussing, recording videos and figuring out ways to close in on the opponents with Fury using different weapons - but no, everyone just slaps on the Acolyte and the problem - and the discussion - goes away.
With the MP forum being around for as long as it has, you really think there has not been discussions about other weapons to use on the Fury? Probably even videos too. Many people use the Venom. Many people use the Acolyte on the Fury because it is incredibly effective. It doesn't make the kit easy to play, nor does it mean the person needs to learn to play. My Fury uses the Tempest and Acolyte. I did my Platinum solo using those two guns. I could have done it without the Acolyte... but why? It synergizes so well with her and I'm a super aggressive Fury.
Really? With the reegar you actually have to aim straight to the target, its not like it has any radius to it -.-
Krogan you are officially indoctrinated
What you say is true. But I said earlier is also true. Why the paradox you ask? The answer lies in incendiary (i.e. i can wave my reegar stream around ghost busters style and the incendiary will effectively provide significant DoT to anything it touches).
*edit: plus I can simply hold down the trigger with the Reegar. This requires less skill than having to squeeze the trigger at the precise moment when the reticle is lined up with an enemy's head.
This thread keeps getting more laughable....This talk of "l2p" vs "elite l2p" weapons. Oh BSN, you so funny!
You misquoted me. It's l2p easy mode vs elite easy mode. Where easy mode = OP.
No, I didn't. I find it ridiculous to label weapons as l2p or elite. Slapping the words easy mode in there doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not confused by your statements. You think the acolyte is a l2p easy mode (op) weapon while other very good weapons are simply elite easy mode (op). In other words, they require some skill to use. Interesting... because I rarely see pugs actually using the Acolyte. If they do then it is a sidearm. That hardly sounds l2p easy mode to me. Many people dislike the Acolyte because of the charge up mechanic and how you will likely need to switch to another weapon to deal with armor efficiently. Again, doesn't really scream l2p easy mode to me, but we all have our own opinions. 
Very much how I see it.
I pay hardly any attention to which weapons other players use in a game. I don't mind at all if someone uses it in a game I'm in - usually I don't even notice.
I don't object to Acolyte's use, I object to its existence. I don' t like the effect it had on the evolution of the game (like the Pull example I mentioned earlier). I don't like the effect it has on the metagame. I don't like how it trivializes a number of tactical problems (no that there aren't any other culprits).
For example, I'd love to see people discussing, recording videos and figuring out ways to close in on the opponents with Fury using different weapons - but no, everyone just slaps on the Acolyte and the problem - and the discussion - goes away.
This is a huge paradox as they are both no right or wrong. Why should they be blamed for using a gun that is the most beneficial to their class compared to one that may not. Only because it makes life easier doesn't mean they're a scrub or have to L2p just means they don't want to wast their time making it any harder. for those that look for a challenge good for you but don't go around saying things just because they aren't doing what you do and choose the the more piratical way of handling things.
What you say is true. But I said earlier is also true. Why the paradox you ask? The answer lies in incendiary (i.e. i can wave my reegar stream around ghost busters style and the incendiary will effectively provide significant DoT to anything it touches).
*edit: plus I can simply hold down the trigger with the Reegar. This requires less skill than having to squeeze the trigger at the precise moment when the reticle is lined up with an enemy's head.
the incendiary same goes for warp and particle rifle and ect... but does it make them less skillful because they use it in that sort of way.
No, I didn't. I find it ridiculous to label weapons as l2p or elite. Slapping the words easy mode in there doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not confused by your statements. You think the acolyte is a l2p easy mode (op) weapon while other very good weapons are simply elite easy mode (op). In other words, they require some skill to use. Interesting... because I rarely see pugs actually using the Acolyte. If they do then it is a sidearm. That hardly sounds l2p easy mode to me. Many people dislike the Acolyte because of the charge up mechanic and how you will likely need to switch to another weapon to deal with armor effectively. Again, doesn't really scream l2p easy mode to me, but we all have our own opinions.
When I say l2p or elite, I don't mean them as derogatory/superior terms. l2p = more forgiving - such that a player with fewer developmental hours can wield them at maximum effectiveness. Elite = more difficult - many more developmental hours are required to wield at max effectiveness. Tbh, I'm still an l2p scrub (although I do have flashes of brilliance sometimes).
Yes, it is very light, but some weapons have a glitched weight. Weapons that should be much heavier. So why is that such a bad thing for the gun in question? The Acolyte is so light because it is actually not super-powered enough to stand alone. If you want to be effective you will need to use it on a kit with some good powers, or bring along a weapon that deal with armor as well. There is nothing wrong with it stripping shields.
When I say l2p or elite, I don't mean them as derogatory/superior terms. l2p = more forgiving - such that a player with fewer developmental hours can wield them at maximum effectiveness. Elite = more difficult - many more developmental hours are required to wield at max effectiveness. Tbh, I'm still an l2p scrub (although I do have flashes of brilliance sometimes).
Unfortunately, those terms are typically used in a derogatory/superior way. I'm sorry for assuming you were using them in such a way.
Tantum ~ I never feel gimped without the Acolyte. I just feel more confident with it. 
I only use it with three kits: Justicar, Human Adept and the Fury. Sometimes I use other weapons with them though.
No, I didn't. I find it ridiculous to label weapons as l2p or elite. Slapping the words easy mode in there doesn't make a difference to me. I'm not confused by your statements. You think the acolyte is a l2p easy mode (op) weapon while other very good weapons are simply elite easy mode (op). In other words, they require some skill to use. Interesting... because I rarely see pugs actually using the Acolyte. If they do then it is a sidearm. That hardly sounds l2p easy mode to me. Many people dislike the Acolyte because of the charge up mechanic and how you will likely need to switch to another weapon to deal with armor efficiently. Again, doesn't really scream l2p easy mode to me, but we all have our own opinions.
PREACH GIRL, PREACH
Agreed. Except that I am OK with certain weapons being indisputably awesome with a particular kit (e.g. TGI Harrier, Typhoon Destroyer, Raider AIU, etc). In this respect, I am fine with the Acolyte being ideal for the Fury. What irks me is the fact that l2p weapons like the Acolyte can be spammed on a large number of kits as the ideal easy mode weapon.
I'm not OK with that. I want variety and real choice without having to sacrifice efficiency for it. I want there to be a multitude of "optimal" ways to play each kit that are more or less equally effective, so that you can discover the one that's the best fit for you specifically.
(Do note that I'm absolutely not saying that all playstyles should be equally effective. That'd be ridiculous.)
But its not just the Acolyte. IMO it is a trinity of easy mode "l2p" weapons: 1. Acolyte, 2. Venom, 3. Reegar. These weapons are "l2p" because they don't require precision aiming to be effective. So one might ask, given this trinity, how do you decide which easy mode weapon to select? And the answer is pretty simple: If your character is tanky, go with the Reegar + Incendiary. If your character is not tanky, then you have to consider your power setup: if you don't have shield stripping powers and/or require quick cooldowns, then go with the Acolyte. If you do have shield stripping powers and/or don't require quick cooldowns, go with the Venom. It's basically that simple.
I don't generally like to classify weapons using these terms, so I don't really know what to say to this without just arguing your definition of "l2p".
Acolyte obviously isn't very good at killing things on its own. It's a utility weapon that's best used on kits that need its utility: stagger, ammo priming and/or stripping defences.
Venom has other problems than just the lack of need to aim. More importantly it combines utility with great damage output (against mooks mostly, not so much against big bosses). Falcon and Krysae used to do that, but they were quickly fixed. Question is: why wasn't Venom? (Maybe because Falcon and Krysae were arguably "fixed" a bit too much? Who knows. Though certainly Venom has never been as popular and dominant as those two weapons were.)
It should also be noted, as loufi suggested in his "Wraith Love" thread, that there also appears to be a trinity of "elite" easy mode weapons: 1. Arc Pistol, 2. Wraith, 3. Talon. These weapons are elite because they require quick, consistent headshots and a high hit ratio to be successful. But if one is skillful enough to use them, they are superior weapons for virtually all classes. And how to determine which elite weapon to use? If operating mid-to-long range, use Arc Pistol. If operating close-to-mid range use Wraith, and if your class has accuracy/RoF bonuses, use Talon. (Note: I'm not an "elite" player, so this is just my naive intuition)
I... have to disagree here. These weapons don't require consistent headshots any more than any other weapon - aside from the few that can OHK without headshots - they just make headshotting easy because of their relatively slow ROF. Still, I'd say it's much easier to be successfull with Wraith or Talon than, say, CAR or Scimitar if you aren't good at headshotting, simply because they have such a good damage output anyway. Hit ratio is nothing more than a multiplier for you damage output, and the same is true for headshot ratio (with proper adjustments).
These three weapons are, simply put, OP (though Wraith slightly less so, as in almost every scenario either Arc or Talon (or both, or some other weapon) is a strictly better choice). So why are they OP? Because they all have great damage output, accuracy, shield penetration, light weight and - like I said - relatively easy headshots.
(Arc Pistol is the only one that requires any special skill and knowledge because of its dependency on precise timing, but that's quickly learned - nothing "elite" there.)
Anyway...
Since the beta I've been advocating the idea that ideally all weapons should be equally good*. I'm still just as convinced of that as I was back then - and it seems that these days people agree with me more than they used to. I love this game because of it offers so much variety in form of different kits and powers. It's a shame that the weapons don't offer the same kind of variety unless you're willing to gimp your effectiveness - often drastically. (As it happens, I am willing, but I still wish I didn't have to do that.)
(*: DISCLAIMER: Yes, I know that's subjective. It changes nothing. And no, "equally good" doesn't mean "functionally same".)
This is a huge paradox as they are both no right or wrong. Why should they be blamed for using a gun that is the most beneficial to their class compared to one that may not. Only because it makes life easier doesn't mean they're a scrub or have to L2p just means they don't want to wast their time making it any harder. for those that look for a challenge good for you but don't go around saying things just because they aren't doing what you do and choose the the more piratical way of handling things.
Uh... you must think I'm saying something that I'm really not saying, and I've no idea why. You might want to re-read what I've written in this thread.
I'm not blaming the players. If I'm blaming someone, I'm blaming the devs for giving us a weapon that, in my opinion, has a negative impact on the game, its evolution, the metagame and the community.
Did I call someone a scrub or told someone to L2P?
For example, I'd love to see people discussing, recording videos and figuring out ways to close in on the opponents with Fury using different weapons - but no, everyone just slaps on the Acolyte and the problem - and the discussion - goes away.
Uh... you must think I'm saying something that I'm really not saying, and I've no idea why. You might want to re-read what I've written in this thread.
I'm not blaming the players. If I'm blaming someone, I'm blaming the devs for giving us a weapon that, in my opinion, has a negative impact on the game, its evolution, the metagame and the community.
Did I call someone a scrub or told someone to L2P?
Did i recall saying that you call them a scrub or told someone to l2p. NO that was just simply stated.
i didn't say your wrong but your not right as well as blaming the devs is even more pathetic then blaming players in my opinion. Yes the devs did place that gun into the game to give us more options but we decide what to do with the guns not them. The have nerfed the acolyte at times to sustain your needs and the others but it's still not enough.
Like i said its a paradox.
I... have to disagree here. These weapons don't require consistent headshots any more than any other weapon - aside from the few that can OHK without headshots - they just make headshotting easy because of their relatively slow ROF. Still, I'd say it's much easier to be successfull with Wraith or Talon than, say, CAR or Scimitar if you aren't good at headshotting, simply because they have such a good damage output anyway. Hit ratio is nothing more than a multiplier for you damage output, and the same is true for headshot ratio (with proper adjustments).
The point I'm trying to make is that the use of certain weapons (and kits to a lesser extent), trivialize the difficulty of the game much more so than others. Some of these "OP" weapons are easy to use (i'm calling them l2p weapons) and others are not as easy to use (i'm calling them elite weapons). In any case, there are a small number of "OP" weapons in this game, and it basically boils down to the six weapons I mentioned earlier. Tbh, evidence supporting this can be found in the gold solo speedrun thread - a cursory glance suggests that these six weapons are the most used.
The only kit I use Acolyte on is the Justicar, because she really needs that utility, and because Asari.
Would I prefer that the kit itself was comparably effective with something else? Hell yeah. Would I prefer the ME2 model where rapid fire SMGs and Assault Rifles were more effective against Shields/Barriers, and slow, harder hitting weapons like Pistols, Sniper Rifles, and some Assault Rifles were more effective against Armor? Hell yeah.
The sad fact of the matter is that the majority of the world is dumb, and in this day and age, we make games for dumb people.
i didn't say your wrong but your not right as well as blaming the devs is even more pathetic then blaming players in my opinion. Yes the devs did place that gun into the game to give us more options but we decide what to do with the guns not them. The have nerfed the acolyte at times to sustain your needs and the others but it's still not enough.
By that logic it'd be perfectly OK if the devs gave us a Cobra with infinite ammo - after all, we decide what to do with the guns, not them, and it just gives us more options. Right? Wrong. Sometimes adding stuff just takes away from the whole, even if it gives us one more "option" (especially when that option makes several other options obsolete).
Like I've said several times now: in my opinion Acolyte has had a negative impact on the game and the community because of its horrible design. If you want to argue what I'm saying, then argue what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying.
And like I wrote earlier (really, have you even read through the thread?) Acolyte was nerfed for very different reasons, and later reverted back to how it always was.
Just went into the kitchen for my first cup of coffee, came back to fire up ME3MP, here's the first lobby of the night:
With that much power, I didn't think she needed my help, so I left
Plus she didn't have an Acolyte, signifying that she has already L'd 2 P. But that much should be obvious by all the other pro gear she had on
Just went into the kitchen for my first cup of coffee, came back to fire up ME3MP, here's the first lobby of the night:
With that much power, I didn't think she needed my help, so I left
Damn that fury is taking a big risk lol unless she knows some thing i don't know 
i must observe this
Just went into the kitchen for my first cup of coffee, came back to fire up ME3MP, here's the first lobby of the night:
With that much power, I didn't think she needed my help, so I left
Plus she didn't have an Acolyte, signifying that she has already L'd 2 P. But that much should be obvious by all the other pro gear she had on
This is so badass I cannot even comprehend, lol.
By that logic it'd be perfectly OK if the devs gave us a Cobra with infinite ammo - after all, we decide what to do with the guns, not them, and it just gives us more options. Right? Wrong. Sometimes adding stuff just takes away from the whole, even if it gives us one more "option" (especially when that option makes several other options obsolete).
Like I've said several times now: in my opinion Acolyte has had a negative impact on the game and the community because of its horrible design. If you want to argue what I'm saying, then argue what I'm saying, not what you think I'm saying.
And like I wrote earlier (really, have you even read through the thread?) Acolyte was nerfed for very different reasons, and later reverted back to how it always was.
You must not be good at reading since i answered directly toward what you suggested
Like your said:I'm blaming the devs for giving us a weapon that, in my opinion, has a negative impact on the game, its evolution, the metagame and the community.
Saying that cobra with infinite ammo doesn't help your case. Yes it would be there fault in that case but that was on outrageous statement which makes it seem like you're saying the acolyte is equal to that cobra gun with infinite ammo in which you just mentioned. It has been nerfed but then brought back a little bit close to its former self you know why. Then it loses it's value and worthiness. the acolyte is use as like a projectile weapon that takes down shields and barriers really good. if you're unhappy with that then i'll lend you a bucket so you can fill it up with your delicious tears
Alright, i'm done with you, it's obvious you're injecting whatever you want into what I'm saying. Have a nice day!
Alright, i'm done with you, it's obvious you're injecting whatever you want into what I'm saying. Have a nice day!
Wait don't forget my bucket of tears
This gives me ideas for a holovid. I'll send you the script as soon as it's finished.
Retour en haut