111 réponses à ce sujet

[LemurFromTheId]

Not going to argue with Aedolon. Some people prefer reasonable variety (my case), others put rc-claymore (javelin / hurricane / carrier / acolyte) on every character.

I hope you're not implying I belong to the latter group. I mean, I'll happily use Claymore with just about any kit in the game, but most of the time I'm out there with some sort of wacky setup with either sub-par weapons, a gimped build or both. You'll never, ever see me running with those Talon/Harrier/Hurricane/Javelin/Acolyte + GI/TGI/AIU/MQI/GT roflstomp setups.
 

Not exactly, it is at the top in accuracy and has only slightly less dps (with rc, 435) than geth plasma shotgun or claymore (no rc, 425 and 470). It also has low spread of pellets. Again, there is nothing wrong with it. You might want to give it a serious try. Of course, it is not right to compare dps with rc to dps without rc. But I don't have any trouble rc-ing katana while I always mess up rc-ing gps or graal.

Seems like a L2P problem. Claymore's base DPS is 833; if you can't get close to that, it's your fault, not Claymore's.

Katana is a bad weapon, because almost every other weapon in the game is objectively better. That doesn't mean that you can't have fun with it or that you can't be even reasonably effective with it if you have skill and a kit/build well suited for the task. But it's still a bad weapon, no matter how much you like it.
 

Locust, Kasumi said you were the gun that killed 2 presidents..now we are lucky if you manage to kill 2 husks... RIP

This too seems like a L2P problem...
 

The Locust used to be one of my favorites, but in ME3 it's worse than useless. On a character with good weapon damage passives, with its headshot modifier it's decent against infantry-level enemies, but against armored bosses, especially those with no headshot bonus, it's abysmal.

I was with some friends playing Collectors/Gold once, and as often happens, I was left as the only one alive to clutch a wave. It was a late wave and eventually I was down to only a Scion left. I don't even recall which character I was, but it took me a ridiculously long time to kill that one Scion when all I had was a Locust. My teammates had to sit around and wait while I mosquito-bit that Scion to death. That was the last time I ever even looked at the Locust.

It's a shame. I really liked that gun in ME2.

Don't get me wrong: Locust is not a rare or ultra-rare, and rightfully so. That said, it's not as bad as you guys make it out to be. What it lacks in damage output it makes up in accuracy and low recoil. With some decent aiming skills it just mows down mooks. Three shots will take out a husk, five an Abomination. Theoretically just about any kit armed with Locust can take out three Gold Assault Troopers every time Claymore can take a shot. In fact you can quite easily kill a bunch of Dragoons with it just as fast as you can kill them with Claymore - and that's not even putting it on a Marksman kit.

Scions really aren't that much of a problem, they go down fast enough when you shoot them in the hump and face, though you certainly don't want to focus on them. Praetorians you'll want to save for last, of course. Personally I can say that I've outscored infiltrators armed with Harriers and BWs against Gold Collectors with just Flamerless GT and Locust. Yeah, pugs will be pugs will be pugs and lolscore and all that, but the point is: if you know how to use it, you can do some serious killing with it, even without compensating with some ridiculous GI setup.

Also, it's a co-op game. You don't need to kill everything yourself. It's perfectly OK to focus on certain types of enemies, at least if you know you can carry if you need to, even if it takes a bit longer.

Locust is certainly a below-average niche weapon, but it's actually quite good within its niche (lightweight mook killer).

[PatrickBateman]

Mattock is decent, and if you are on the PC and can setup auto-click script then it is almost as good as Harier

lol auto-click macro, less macros more l2p.

It's a good gun, but require a lot of clicking which sort of is how it's designed.

[banans_huligans]

lol auto-click macro, less macros more l2p.

It's a good gun, but require a lot of clicking which sort of is how it's designed.

More like l2c as in Learn to click

[ROBOTICSUPERMAN]

Vindicator is a nice gun. Put it on any character and equip it with hvb and recoil dampener, then fire from cover and you will get 3 head shots every burst(as long as you can aim for the head )

I use it on my fqe for head shotting weak mooks, and stripping shields with disruptor ammo, can then follow up with a incinerate for a detonation or cryo the freeze them while dealing with someone else.

Bosses are a slight issue for the gun (if the boss has no head shot), but not an issue for incinerate, cryo, ap turret, and several combo detonations.

[banans_huligans]

Vindicator is a nice gun. Put it on any character and equip it with hvb and recoil dampener, then fire from cover and you will get 3 head shots every burst(as long as you can aim for the head )

I use it on my fqe for head shotting weak mooks, and stripping shields with disruptor ammo, can then follow up with a incinerate for a detonation or cryo the freeze them while dealing with someone else.

Bosses are a slight issue for the gun (if the boss has no head shot), but not an issue for incinerate, cryo, ap turret, and several combo detonations.

Any gun can setup tech combos so that is not valid point.  I think the vindicator was my least favorite gun when I was doing the gun challenges, it was terrible even with TSol

[Miniditka77]

Don't get me wrong: Locust is not a rare or ultra-rare, and rightfully so. That said, it's not as bad as you guys make it out to be. What it lacks in damage output it makes up in accuracy and low recoil. With some decent aiming skills it just mows down mooks. Three shots will take out a husk, five an Abomination. Theoretically just about any kit armed with Locust can take out three Gold Assault Troopers every time Claymore can take a shot. In fact you can quite easily kill a bunch of Dragoons with it just as fast as you can kill them with Claymore - and that's not even putting it on a Marksman kit.

Scions really aren't that much of a problem, they go down fast enough when you shoot them in the hump and face, though you certainly don't want to focus on them. Praetorians you'll want to save for last, of course. Personally I can say that I've outscored infiltrators armed with Harriers and BWs against Gold Collectors with just Flamerless GT and Locust. Yeah, pugs will be pugs will be pugs and lolscore and all that, but the point is: if you know how to use it, you can do some serious killing with it, even without compensating with some ridiculous GI setup.

Also, it's a co-op game. You don't need to kill everything yourself. It's perfectly OK to focus on certain types of enemies, at least if you know you can carry if you need to, even if it takes a bit longer.

Locust is certainly a below-average niche weapon, but it's actually quite good within its niche (lightweight mook killer).

 

Locust is fine against mooks.  I personally hate it, but it can be effective in the right hands, especially with any kind of accuracy boost.  It's sooooo bad against bosses though.  I did a LOLSilver Collectors game with a Volus Merc with the Locust about a month ago, and I had to clutch one of the later waves.  Hooboy, even on Silver, I felt like I was trying to fight off The Mountain with a supersoaker when I was taking down the last Scion and Praetorian in the wave.

[Quarian Master Race]

When I run locust on a weapons kit, it's in a 2 gun setup to make up for its DPS issues against targets it doesn't get the 3x multiplier against. Something like a paladin or piranha to use against bosses

It works fine alone on kits that can destroy armor with powers, such as the QFE. If you use it alone on a weapons kit, its your own fault when a boss rolls around and you can't kill it in under 20 seconds. The gun is fine for its niche.

[Matthias King]

I wish Bioware would get out of the traditional old-school RPG mindset when it comes to weapons, at least when it comes to guns in ME.

 

I don't play Dragon Age or any other 'sword and sorcery' type RPGs so I can't speak for how things work in those types of games, but for something like ME with ranged weapons, i.e. guns, they need to get out of that mode of thought.

[LemurFromTheId]

I wish Bioware would get out of the traditional old-school RPG mindset when it comes to weapons, at least when it comes to guns in ME.

 

I don't play Dragon Age or any other 'sword and sorcery' type RPGs so I can't speak for how things work in those types of games, but for something like ME with ranged weapons, i.e. guns, they need to get out of that mode of thought.

 

Maybe you'd like to elaborate so that we might know what you actually mean by that?

[Salarian Master Race]

I think he means

 

Steel Sword < Ceramic Sword < Laconia Sword (progression)

(Avenger < Phaeston < Lancer as an example)

 

as opposed to

 

T5 AMC = TRAC-5 = LC3 Jaguar (viable options)

 

but clarification of this would be appreciated.

[GruntKitterhand]

Nice running into the OP last night, rocking a KroGuard with Scimitar, and I can confirm that the Scimitar is indeed a superb Omniblade holder 

[Matthias King]

I think he means

 

Steel Sword < Ceramic Sword < Laconia Sword (progression)

(Avenger < Phaeston < Lancer as an example)

 

as opposed to

 

T5 AMC = TRAC-5 = LC3 Jaguar (viable options)

 

but clarification of this would be appreciated.

 

You've pretty much got it. The old 'rusty sword' thing in fantasy RPGs is fine, but in a shooter, it makes no sense if you think about it in terms of the lore. I know not everyone cares about lore, but even if you just think about it from a simple logic standpoint, no one in the Alliance, or anyone else for that matter, would use the Avenger if it were actually as worthless as it is. Same with the Locust and sadly a lot of other weapons. Or weapons that are extremely situational as well.

 

If there were guns like this in real life, I guarantee that few if any warfighters would actually use them. I know there's a difference between real life and a game, no one needs to say it, but I think Bioware is too stuck in their fantasy RPG mode of thinking to see that there doesn't actually need to be a 'rusty sword' equivalent in a shooter.

 

I hope in ME:A, the most powerful guns and the least powerful ones have a much, much smaller disparity between them. Otherwise it just makes no sense. There shouldn't be any weapons that are designed to be thrown away the second you get something better.

 

If they do it this way, I foresee two things happening, both good:

 

1) people can use the weapons they genuinely like and not be severely handicapped

 

2) you won't have a case where all you see are Reegars and Harriers

 

You'll likely still see powerful characters, but at least the weapons would all be comparable and would all have a use and could compete. It will add a lot of variety, not just for the player to use, but also to see in their teammates.
 

[The NightMan Cometh]

Ran with the Locust last night on the DrellDept....I forgot about how the shooting sound effect changed from ME2 to ME3...since I have been doing a new run in ME2.and am using the Locust in it....ME3's shooting sound effect is...meh...sounds like it is tickling the enemy..still took forever to kill stuff..but you know..Reave...

[Miniditka77]

Practically speaking, Bioware needs some type of incentive for people to pay real money into the RNG, in order to financially justify the support and DLC for multiplayer.  So in all likelihood, there will continue to be a big gap between the best and worst weapons.  I guess they could just make weapon mods better and harder to get instead of the weapons themselves.  That might be preferable.  But there is going to be some sort of incentive program to pay for upgrades.

[LemurFromTheId]

I hope in ME:A, the most powerful guns and the least powerful ones have a much, much smaller disparity between them. Otherwise it just makes no sense. There shouldn't be any weapons that are designed to be thrown away the second you get something better.

I agree.

From day one I've advocated the idea that all weapons should be equally good, just different. (Yes, I realize "equally good" is completely subjective and impossible to attain perfectly in practise. That's fine, it's the thought that matters.)

Weapon rarity (if that's a thing) should depend on the "uniqueness" of the weapon: run-of-the-mill assault rifles should be common; psychokinetic needle launchers, transphasic gauss cannons and ethereal crossbows should be rare. The point here being that rare weapon unlocks shouldn't make you more powerful, they should enable new ways to play the game.

If weapon leves are necessary (I don't think they are, but that's just me), common and rare weapons should scale differently. While all weapons should be equally powerful at X, a Rare Weapon I should be more powerful than Common Weapon I. Furthermore, common weapons should only be common at lower levels, upgrading a common weapon from IX to X should be equally hard as upgrading a rare weapon from IX to X. This way those hard-to-get rare weapons would be useful when you unlock them, but wouldn't totally outclass common weapons as you keep upgrading them.

[RopeDrink]

More often than not I'll just experiment for my own enjoyment -- anything from simply using strong builds but with a slightly downgraded weapon, to outright nonsense such as supposedly 'viable' HumSol sniper builds with the starting sniper-weps. At the end of the day, good players can make anything work - it just means 'more work' for it to work. You get me.

 

I have no problem admitting that I've a soft spot for the Shuriken & Katana.

[Matthias King]

Practically speaking, Bioware needs some type of incentive for people to pay real money into the RNG, in order to financially justify the support and DLC for multiplayer.  So in all likelihood, there will continue to be a big gap between the best and worst weapons.  I guess they could just make weapon mods better and harder to get instead of the weapons themselves.  That might be preferable.  But there is going to be some sort of incentive program to pay for upgrades.

 

Unfortunately, I would imagine this is what will ultimately win out. Not what's best for gameplay, but what's best for a quick buck from casual gamers.

 

And in a way, I can't blame them. Studios making crap 'freemium' mobile games that focus almost solely on pay-walls and monetized transactions are raking in money. It was only a matter of time before triple-A gaming took notice and started adapting those methods into their own games.

 

The MP was an experiment, but not in what you think. It wasn't so much an experiment to see if MP could work, it was to see how much money they could wring out of it through the store. And apparently it was a success, so it's coming back in ME:A, not because people liked it, but because it made them a lot of money.

 

GTA Online is the same way.

 

Mind you, I'm not one of those people who thinks capitalism is evil. I just hate that it's infecting gaming. The purchase price is no longer the actual price of games.

 

So I believe you're right. Balance and good gameplay be damned. Giving people that ridiculously powerful weapon to keep spending money trying to attain is what will determine the bulk of the design of the next multiplayer.

 

Sad, but true.

 

EDIT: and Aedolon, I agree with you 100%. The lower tier weapons should scale differently than the higher tier ones, so that what you start out with could be comparable to the Avenger vs. Harrier, but what you end up with by the time they're both full upgraded would close that gap entirely, or almost entirely. That way players starting out won't be too powerful right out of the gate, but they can improve their weapons as they play, and not just the small handful of 'god' weapons. If you like the Avenger or whatever its equivalent is in ME:A, it would still be perfectly viable at its highest levels.

 

It's a very elegant system and I couldn't agree more.

 

Sadly, I bet we won't see that.
 

[TheN7Penguin]

QFI Mattock is surprisingly fun.

[RZIBARA]

The Tempest is a pretty good SMG, although the hurricane is better. The rest are crap

[Asari Goddess]

The Tempest is a pretty good SMG, although the hurricane is better. The rest are crap

 

Hurrican lives up to its name

 

I love it 

[RZIBARA]

Hurrican lives up to its name

 

I love it 

 

I haven't played ME3 MP since 2013, but damn I remember always arming my N7 Slayer and Fury with the hurricane, so much fun. 

 

Cant wait till ME3 is added to the Xbox One's BC list

[Salarian Master Race]

Hurrican lives up to its name

 

I love it 

 

I never cared for all the vibration, though some may consider it a feature.

[LemurFromTheId]

The MP was an experiment, but not in what you think. It wasn't so much an experiment to see if MP could work, it was to see how much money they could wring out of it through the store. And apparently it was a success, so it's coming back in ME:A, not because people liked it, but because it made them a lot of money.

 

That's a bit too cynical for my taste.

 

Before they - EA, that is - can wring out money, they need a game that people will play, so for sure they wanted to see how ME would work as an MP game. With all the talk about evil corporations doing this and that it's easy to forget that the people who make these games are people who are in this business because they're passionate about what they do - and it's obvious to me that a lot of love was put into ME3MP. EA may have made the decision to add MP to the series for their own reasons, but I'm sure that after taking the assignment, Bioware did it for theirs.

 

If the ultimate goal is to make money - well, isn't that true of every commercial game out there?

 

ME3MP was a huge success based purely on how we kept playing and playing it, even though plenty of people thought it'd die by the time Borderlands 2 came out, or by the end of the first year at the latest. After all the SP drama that must have felt good, not just to Bioware, but to EA too. MEA needs to be a game that's well-received by fans - EA knows that - and ME3MP was hugely popular and well-received considering ME series used to be purely a single-player experience.

 

I've seen it mentioned many, many, many times on these forums that EA made lots of money from the RNG store, but I still haven't seen anyone come up with any kind of numbers or any other evidence to support that claim (and the fact that they made MP DLC really isn't strong evidence, because there are multiple other reasons for making those).

[Deerber]

Did I just see... Someone defending the Katana? Damn... I thought I had seen everything bsn has to offer

I wonder if anyone will ever defend the shuriken...

[Darth Volus]

Did I just see... Someone defending the Katana? Damn... I thought I had seen everything bsn has to offer

I wonder if anyone will ever defend the shuriken...

 

What's wrong with the Katana? Phantoms use it and it seems pretty effective to me   Deerbra pls.