390 réponses à ce sujet

[Deerber]

If everyone's wish about stuff they don't like not being included in the game came true, there'll be no game to play.

Thwre sure as hell would be no Geth

[Cryos_Feron]

I don't need your respect.

ok. glad that I don't need you to need it

win/win

[Catastrophy]

ok. glad that I don't need you to need it

win/win

I don't care you don't. I win.

[J. Peterman]

I think I already gave many reasons.

But I can sum it up again.....

Regarding my personal playing:

I like the Acolyte as much as I would like a freely accessible cheat-button.
(Tempting but fun-killer in the longrun).


I like challenges.
But the Acolyte doesn't require aim, can 1-shot-remove a Phantoms barrier, AOE, and staggers, etc.
So I almost completely stopped using it. Like I did with the Reegar, flamer, etc.


Regarding my teammates:
In certain situations "score" becomes interesting for me - also: how it is earned.

And I am honest enough to admit it.

 

Did I mention that I like challenges? I like sporty competition.

In weak PUGS: Extraction is the only challenge, score does not matter - actually I like this scenario a lot
in very strong PUGS: I try to score high (what else might there be challenging??)
with friends: with those I chat and have fun with - score clearly is secondary or not important at all
but with "certain friends" ;-) it is a sporty competition, teasing each other


if someone outscores me, he has my respect and then it happens often that I send them a text
congratulating them for improving their performance, etc.
HOWEVER, if someone outscores me with flamer, reegar, acolyte - my respect is somewhat smaller, sorry.

 

Loooooooooool. So you're mad because you got outscored by an Acolyte user? Looooooooooooooooool again

[Cryos_Feron]

Loooooooooool. So you're mad because you got outscored by an Acolyte user? Looooooooooooooooool again

man, you don't understand it, or don't want to.
we should stop this.

just be assured that I am not mad AT ALL

 

ah, I forgot: 

loooooooooooooool (*rolling eyes*) 

[J. Peterman]

man, you don't understand it, or don't want to.
we should stop this.

just be assured that I am not mad AT ALL

 

So if you're not mad, WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE THREAD?

 

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. Either you don't have an issue with people using the Acolyte (making the thread pointless), or you do (implying the converse)?

 

Which is it?

[Cryos_Feron]

I said I am stopping here.

 

Because either you are a provocateur, or you will never understand my meaning.

 

Both make it pointless to reply.

[J. Peterman]

Both make it pointless to reply.

 

Yet you did.

 

Either way, chalking up another BSN victory. Oops...wrong acco......

 

Nothing to see here.

[panda5onix]

 

          wow

                  so tactics

   much depth            wow

 wow

                many skillz

 

 

 

You made a good point. Coop is what it's all about!

[NuclearTech76]

I have a hypothesis:  The acolyte is only OP on consoles, LOLZ.

 

tl;dr - I started an alt manifest on PC over the weekend, and to quote PHOEN1XK1NG, "headshotzbitchez"

 

My initial gift packs granted me the Eagle I and Turian Soldier... didn't miss the acolyte at all.  So yeah, I get it now.  Sorry for being a n00b.

 

Really begs the question tho: does it make sense to have different balance changes for PC than for console?

Well **** yes it does but trying enlightening BW to that.

[Cryos_Feron]

Loooooooooool. So you're mad because you got outscored by an Acolyte user? Looooooooooooooooool again

ok! last try.

it is the OPPOSITE.

getting outscored by flaming Acolyte reegar means LESS to me.

getting outscored by everything else rather causes my respect that giving me a headache.
actually I like sporty competition, that's one reason to like the Acolyte less.

ONE reason

[J. Peterman]

ok! last try.

it is the OPPOSITE.

getting outscored by flaming Acolyte reegar means LESS to me.

getting outscored by everything else rather causes my respect that giving me a headache.
actually I like sporty competition, that's one reason to like the Acolyte less.

ONE reason

 

Oh! You're here for a rematch.

 

So, based on this post, you have a different reaction when you get outscored by an Acolyte user, ergo, you do care. It's that simple.

[ALTBOULI]

I hope we get the pre-nerf Acoylte in ME:A

[TheNightSlasher]

Double the AoE and damage on the acolyte in ME:A. Bioware pls.

[LemurFromTheId]

Double the AoE and damage on the acolyte in ME:A. Bioware pls.

 
Either Acolyte won't be in MEA or it's Acolyte in name only. I have faith even Bioware realized it was a mistake.

[TheNightSlasher]

Either Acolyte won't be in MEA or it's Acolyte in name only. I have faith even Bioware realized it was a mistake.

TBH, there are far bigger and significant weapon/power/gear characteristics I'd like to see modified than the acolyte.

Then again, I would like a much diff. set of weapons and powers in MEA.

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Which is it?

He's talking about design issues, as other posters have engaged substantively. You're trying to reduce the ideas to one emotional reaction so you can dismiss it.

@Aedolon--exactly right. What this comes down to is a certain amount of niche protection. What's the difference between an AR and an SMG? Well, AR's hit harder, they're more accurate, and they're more stable in bursts and auto-fire. SMG's mag have a better fire rate, and they're smaller and lighter.

In ME2, there were even mechanical consequences for different weapon types. Shields got chewed up more by lots of little projectiles than by one big one. With weapon modding, however, the weapons approach sameness. Every weapon can rip through armor now, and one of the best AR's is a sub-gun.

I suppose it's inevitable, especially if you want a micro-transaction store with lots of things to collect (and maybe pay) for. If there are 15 of every weapon type, they can't be exactly the same, can they?

Of course, the same handful of weapons keep coming to the game: Acolyte, Harrier, Talon, Claymore, Javelin, Black Widow, Wraith, Saber--with a few weapons so obviously superior, I'm not sure they couldn't have kept the weapons more in their niches and made the differences ait more cosmetic that substantive.

[J. Peterman]

He's talking about design issues, as other posters have engaged substantively. You're trying to reduce the ideas to one emotional reaction so you can dismiss it.

 

How does the design have an impact on him? I don't like the design of the Acolyte, so guess what? I don't use it. Why should players who like the design be deprived of the weapon?

[Cryos_Feron]

... . You're trying to reduce the ideas to one emotional reaction so you can dismiss it.

thanks

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

How does the design have an impact on him? I don't like the design of the Acolyte, so guess what? I don't use it. Why should players who like the design be deprived of the weapon?

Well, what's being discussed are things like overall game balance and niche protection for both weapons and characters. If, for example, a weapon had been released at the uncommon tier that had enough damage and to kill shielded gold mooks with a body shot (and ignored shield gate), carried 20 rounds in the magazine, and had RoF and reload times similar to a Predator (oh, and 2X damage modifiers against everthing), was light enough to provide 200 percent recharge, etc., etc., it would be a little destabilizing, right? Wed all have a god-tier weapon maximized with Veteran Packs.

And then every other weapon, along with our powers, would be useless next to it. Good players could still gimp themselves by leaving the weapon on the rack, and they could do videos about how they could solo gold using something weak, like a Javelin or Claymore. But the weapon would still be there in the armory, and all the pugs would have one (maybe two!), and every game would be about who had that weapon and what they were doing with it.

Now, the Acolyte is not that unbalancing, but we're talking about scale. At what point are you gimping in your effectiveness by not taking a weapon along? That's what we're talking about. Any weapon or power or kit that has huge advantages without drawbacks threatens the point of the game.

The point of the game isn't killing Reapers; the Holy Grail of design in a coop game is to have all the players feel like they have something to contribute in different ways while not being drowned out. It's niche protection. If my god-tier uncommon out-Claymores the Claymore, with none of the weight or *cough* reload time, the Claymore kind of ceases to exist. Otherwise, there would be no point to buffs and nerfs.

The issue isn't really about scrapping the Acolyte. The idea of a shield-stripping weapon that biotics might want is a pretty good niche to fill. The question is what is the downside? The Acolyte as it is (and another six months of game updates may have changed it, mind you) might not have enough limitation to balance its benefit. It's feather-light, it burns shields down instantly, it's only rare-tier, and you don't even have to aim it. The charging thing doesn't balance that out.

I can't find a pug Gold game without Acolytes in it these days. And the lobbies with no Acolytes are typical filled with players who clearly don't understand the game mechanics.

Anyway, I'd like to see them find better niches for the weapons and do a much better job of keeping them there.

[J. Peterman]

Well, what's being discussed are things like overall game balance and niche protection for both weapons and characters. If, for example, a weapon had been released at the uncommon tier that had enough damage and to kill shielded gold mooks with a body shot (and ignored shield gate), carried 20 rounds in the magazine, and had RoF and reload times similar to a Predator (oh, and 2X damage modifiers against everthing), was light enough to provide 200 percent recharge, etc., etc., it would be a little destabilizing, right? Wed all have a god-tier weapon maximized with Veteran Packs.

And then every other weapon, along with our powers, would be useless next to it. Good players could still gimp themselves by leaving the weapon on the rack, and they could do videos about how they could solo gold using something weak, like a Javelin or Claymore. But the weapon would still be there in the armory, and all the pugs would have one (maybe two!), and every game would be about who had that weapon and what they were doing with it.

Now, the Acolyte is not that unbalancing, but we're talking about scale. At what point are you gimping in your effectiveness by not taking a weapon along? That's what we're talking about. Any weapon or power or kit that has huge advantages without drawbacks threatens the point of the game.

The point of the game isn't killing Reapers; the Holy Grail of design in a coop game is to have all the players feel like they have something to contribute in different ways while not being drowned out. It's niche protection. If my god-tier uncommon out-Claymores the Claymore, with none of the weight or *cough* reload time, the Claymore kind of ceases to exist. Otherwise, there would be no point to buffs and nerfs.

The issue isn't really about scrapping the Acolyte. The idea of a shield-stripping weapon that biotics might want is a pretty good niche to fill. The question is what is the downside? The Acolyte as it is (and another six months of game updates may have changed it, mind you) might not have enough limitation to balance its benefit. It's feather-light, it burns shields down instantly, it's only rare-tier, and you don't even have to aim it. The charging thing doesn't balance that out.

I can't find a pug Gold game without Acolytes in it these days. And the lobbies with no Acolytes are typical filled with players who clearly don't understand the game mechanics.

Anyway, I'd like to see them find better niches for the weapons and do a much better job of keeping them there.

 

Not sure why you're writing a thesis. It boils down to one question. Do you care whether or not someone uses it? 

[Tantum Dic Verbo]

Not sure why you're writing a thesis. It boils down to one question. Do you care whether or not someone uses it?

No, it doesn't boil down to one question to which you'd like to confine the discussion; it's a broader topic than that. I guess we'll all just be talking past each other on the topic. The tone of the first post may have been (comically) hyperbolic, but there are related issues of game balance to consider, and it will be interesting to see what Bioware does about them.

[J. Peterman]

No, it doesn't boil down to one question to which you'd like to confine the discussion; it's a broader topic than that. I guess we'll all just be talking past each other on the topic. The tone of the first post may have been (comically) hyperbolic, but there are related issues of game balance to consider, and it will be interesting to see what Bioware does about them.

 

It does boil down to that question unfortunately. The only reason to care about something being unbalanced is if it bothers you when others use it. A fine example is the Juggernaut. It's balance bothers me because I've dropped in on tons of all Juggy lobbies, and usually have to leave because the games end up being slower. Now, what possible impact could someone else using an Acolyte have on your gaming experience?

[ALTBOULI]

LolBalance, have you ever played the GI? clearly you give Bioware too much credit.  It's supposed to be a co-op game. It's not intended to be competitive in anyway. They rebalanced the Acolyte once to add a charge-up and clearly they thought that was enough, it's not a game-breaking weapon by any means so I dont understand why some people are so insistent on specifically targeting this weapon and not including it in Andromeda. It doesn't make sense to me personally 

[LemurFromTheId]

TBH, there are far bigger and significant weapon/power/gear characteristics I'd like to see modified than the acolyte.

Then again, I would like a much diff. set of weapons and powers in MEA.

 

I totally agree, on both accounts.