I have been thinking of Ammo

[Rakosta_Kai]

12 minutes ago, Corvid said:

No, it really isn't. DPS is a controlled factor here. The weapons deal equal DPS, but one will have more issues with ammo than the other. That is the problem we are trying to solve.

If you continue to be stubborn and refuse to recognise this fundamental fact, I really see no point in continuing this discussion

Yes, it really still is...DPS even as a controlled factor doesn't change the fact that you knew it took more rounds to achieve that dps than it would have with the other pistol.

In other words, Still DPS.

Your argument, functionally, asserts that both pistols should take the same time to reach full capacity even when the capacities differ wildly.

That argument make no sense—It's like saying it should take the same amount of time to fill the gas tank of a Toyota Prius as it would a Ford F-250.

In other words, you want a workaround for why Bullet Hoses are called Bullet Hoses to begin with and choose to couch it behind balance?

How's that for fundamental facts?

Forgive me for stubbornly insisting that ideas make sense... It's a nasty habit of mine.

[TARINunit9]

8 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

and pretty sure doom does have a very well balanced ammo drop for ammo based on the weapon.

Doom 4 yes. But Doom Eternal has a completely different system: your ammo is technically limited, but using the chainsaw recharges about two magazines for EVERY gun (except the BFG). And the chainsaw itself regenerates fuel, AND a group of chainsawable enemies in every fight will respawn until all the heavy enemies are dead. So your ammo is functionally unlimited

 

[Corvid]

33 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

 

In other words, you want a workaround for why Bullet Hoses are called Bullet Hoses to begin with and choose to couch it behind balance?

Bullet hoses are called bullet hoses because of their fire rate, constantly running dry on ammo is not an inherent part of the archetype since, again, in most games weapons with high ammo consumption are always either given more ammo from restocks relative to others, or are "power weapons" that have their low availability offset with high damage output.

If the increased ammo inefficiency were the trade-off for increased DPS, then you'd have a point, but in most cases it isn't, so you don't. One weapon archetype has an issue that the other doesn't, with nothing to make up for it.

33 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

Your argument, functionally, asserts that both pistols should take the same time to reach full capacity even when the capacities differ wildly.

No, it asserts that weapons should have restocks proportional to their damage output. Right now a high-damage single shot will both output more damage and get more ammo back relative to said output than a weapon designed for automatic fire.

To expand on the earlier example, say you're guaranteed a drop worth 20 ammo for every 5 enemies you kill, and every enemy has 100 hp. Weapon A kills each enemy in 10 shots, resulting in a net loss of 30 ammo (50 expended, 20 restocked) per 5 enemies. Weapon B kills each enemy in one shot, resulting in a net profit of 15 (5 expended, 20 restocked). Despite both having the exact same DPS, Weapon A will inevitably run out of ammunition, while Weapon B will effectively never run out. If you can't see the imbalance here, then quite frankly you are not equipped to partake in this discussion.

33 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

Yes, it really still is...DPS even as a controlled factor doesn't change the fact that you knew it took more rounds to achieve that dps than it would have with the other pistol.

OK, so you apparently don't understand what a controlled factor is. Either that or you're unable to realise that what you are describing is quite literally the issue. Players who like one weapon archetype are being disproportionately punished in comparison to those who like a different one. Saying "You knew in advance" doesn't solve the problem, it just shows that you don't care about problems that don't effect you.

33 minutes ago, Padre_Akais said:

Forgive me for stubbornly insisting that ideas make sense... It's a nasty habit of mine.

Based on your arguments thus far, you can't exactly call it a habit if you were never doing it to begin with.

[(XBOX)Hyperion Rexx]

I think the ammo economy is something best left to the individual player to balance for themselves rather than, as others have said, reinvent the wheel for negligible benefit.

 

For example, I choose to use acceltra.  Great gun, fun to use, powerful, does its job very well.  BUT, for me at least, its not unusual for me to run out of ammo.   Compare that to my trumna.  Also a lot of fun etc, but I don't think I've ever run out ammo using it, and I use both guns in the same way, ie, very much pray and spray.

So, I have a decision to make.  I can use the acceltra and have fun with that, but I'll have to compensate for its ammo efficiency somewhere in my build.   Or I can use the trumna and not do that. 

"Ah!" I hear you cry, "that's the point.  Why would you ever use the acceltra?".   Well, mainly cos I like it, and tbh, the ways available to counter poor ammo efficiency are not that big of a deal for me to be able to do so without hampering my build in any meaningful way.   Having different rates of ammo consumption compared to the amount that drops i think is actually good for the game and something that, occasionally, may need the player to make an actual meaningful decision.

[Corvid]

26 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

reinvent the wheel for negligible benefit

Except the benefits (that being a more balanced ammo economy) aren't negligible. It's the difference between an entire weapon archetype having to rely on crutches just to keep up and being able to stand on its own.

 

26 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

For example, I choose to use acceltra.  Great gun, fun to use, powerful, does its job very well.  BUT, for me at least, its not unusual for me to run out of ammo.   Compare that to my trumna.  Also a lot of fun etc, but I don't think I've ever run out ammo using it, and I use both guns in the same way, ie, very much pray and spray.

The Acceltra has both lower base damage and status chance than the Trumna. It's also specifically built so that while you might run out of ammo quickly, you'll also get it back just as quickly (3 Rifle pickups for a full restock including the loaded magazine). The Trumna, on the other hand, has a large enough magazine (and a secondary fire that significantly offsets its ammo usage) that by the time you empty one magazine, you'll usually have found enough pickups to restock it.

26 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

the ways available to counter poor ammo efficiency are not that big of a deal for me to be able to do so without hampering my build in any meaningful way.

And as long as those counters are available to all weapons, they can't be considered a solution to the drawbacks of a specific few.

All weapons can use those options. The issue is that some of them need to while others can go with or without.

26 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

Having different rates of ammo consumption compared to the amount that drops i think is actually good for the game and something that, occasionally, may need the player to make an actual meaningful decision.

For the weapons that can't sustain themselves, there is no decision, just a checkbox.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

1 hour ago, Corvid said:

Bullet hoses are called bullet hoses because of their fire rate, constantly running dry on ammo is not an inherent part of the archetype since, again, in most games weapons with high ammo consumption are always either given more ammo from restocks relative to others, or are "power weapons" that have their low availability offset with high damage output.

If the increased ammo inefficiency were the trade-off for increased DPS, then you'd have a point, but in most cases it isn't, so you don't. One weapon archetype has an issue that the other doesn't, with nothing to make up for it.

No, it asserts that weapons should have restocks proportional to their damage output. Right now a high-damage single shot will both output more damage and get more ammo back relative to said output than a weapon designed for automatic fire.

To expand on the earlier example, say you're guaranteed a drop worth 20 ammo for every 5 enemies you kill, and every enemy has 100 hp. Weapon A kills each enemy in 10 shots, resulting in a net loss of 30 ammo (50 expended, 20 restocked) per 5 enemies. Weapon B kills each enemy in one shot, resulting in a net profit of 15 (5 expended, 20 restocked). Despite both having the exact same DPS, Weapon A will inevitably run out of ammunition, while Weapon B will effectively never run out. If you can't see the imbalance here, then quite frankly you are not equipped to partake in this discussion.

 

Except you're playing warframe....where that enemy with 100hp can have his hp reduced 100 different ways, so you don't need to use as many bullets. 

You're also forgetting that some inexperienced players can't aim, spray aimlessly and can't use controlled bursts when necessary.

[(XBOX)Hyperion Rexx]

6 minutes ago, Corvid said:

The Acceltra has both lower base damage and status chance than the Trumna. It's also specifically built so that while you might run out of ammo quickly, you'll also get it back just as quickly (3 Rifle pickups for a full restock including the loaded magazine). The Trumna, on the other hand, has a large enough magazine (and a secondary fire that significantly offsets its ammo usage) that by the time you empty one magazine, you'll usually have found enough pickups to restock it.

It wasn't meant to be an opportunity to compare weapons, I know very well there are differences but thank you for the condescending explanation nonetheless.   

It was meant to be an opportunity to compare choices, something it seems many players are against, other than the fake, impossible dream of thinking any weapon should be viable in any content - not gonna happen.   I'm talking about actual meaningful choices where you have to weigh up pros and cons - for example, gun A may have issues, whereas gun B won't, but gun A does something better than gun B, or is more fun to you, or goes with your fashion better or whatever.  But you have a meaningful choice, something that may involve having to make compromises or build adjustments rather than just choose literally anything and you'll do fine.

The kind of choices this game needs more of tbh.

[Rakosta_Kai]

36 minutes ago, Corvid said:

f the increased ammo inefficiency were the trade-off for increased DPS, then you'd have a point, but in most cases it isn't, so you don't. One weapon archetype has an issue that the other doesn't, with nothing to make up for it.

Except they quite frequently are— given that most of the newer bullet hoses are elemental primers/ips stackers. If you have decided to use the afuris or somesuch expecting equity, that's on you.
But, since you, conveniently, neglected to bring this up though I figured I would do it for you...

Likewise, you neglected to address the inanity of expecting to fill the two different pistol types (with two entirely different capacities) at the same speed—I can only guess this is because you don't have a decent explanation for holding that expectation.

I'm afraid I can't count asserting that "weapons should have restocks proportional to their damage output" as it removes the downside of using a bullet hose to begin with. 

Why call it a bullet hose then? You don't know—You just want your ammo without having to waste time planning for it. Which was the intent with Bullet hoses to begin with.

Your argument simply doesn't pass muster because it doesn't make sense.

Don't get mad at me about that... It's your argument.

42 minutes ago, Corvid said:

OK, so you apparently don't understand what a controlled factor is. Either that or you're unable to realise that what you are describing is quite literally the issue. Players who like one weapon archetype are being disproportionately punished in comparison to those who like a different one. Saying "You knew in advance" doesn't solve the problem, it just shows that you don't care about problems that don't effect you.

On the contrary, I fully understand what you are trying to do and disagree completely.
You made a decision about what you opted to use and have refused to accept it's downsides along with it... You, instead, view those as optional.

In this case, you expect a high ROF weapon to have the ammo economy of a low ROF instead and want the game changed to support that.

The game already supports that (to degrees) with tradeoffs that YOU have to plan for accordingly. You want more crutches though...

If we apply your logic to Hand Cannons it would assert that a Hand Cannon should never need to be reloaded then. Why? Because the downsides of low clip/ammo count shouldn't apply as it "disproportionately punishes players by comparison" 

That's exactly how much sense your stance actually makes...

[0_The_F00l]

1 hour ago, Padre_Akais said:

More like your argument is just exactly misplaced enough to be called a sand castle instead...

Your argument seeks a remedy as an adjunct for your inability/dis-taste to plan appropriately. 

I don't care if your goofy priming bullet hose runs out of ammo— That means it's working as intended.

If it ran out, it did so because you failed to plan. 

As such, You let that happen.

FWIW, My DPS is fine. I don't run out of ammo because I planned to keep it from happening in the first place. There are a ton of tools at my disposal to do so and I use what fits.

But, I actually plan for instances when I use weapons like that...

Perhaps try that instead of trying to re-invent the wheel or magically shifting around your goalposts?

Both are bad tactics to resolve challenges in my opinion.

Good for you mate , you have managed to use weapons with drawbacks by using other tools available to you , very commendable.

You are still missing the picture that other weapons exist that can do better without having to depend on those tools and does not need planning.

One could intentionally take the harder route with more effort if one wishes , congrats on being that guy.

1 hour ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

You need to work on your weapons and spray and pray playstyle then. 

Padre akais is correct. 

So far we have 2 specific weapons that you're using to justify a game wide change. Do you have any other examples? 

i actually don't use either of the weapons (akarius or twin grakatas), its only to give a comparison of the inherent imbalance between weapons and their sustainability based on ammo - as they are on opposites of the graph. Perhaps Twin kohmaks would be the actual weapons i have used for fun and actual damage that could use it most.

Limited to secondary If i have to take a full auto weapon i take my Rattleguts, ocucor or Gaze cause they can easily bypass the issue or perform efficiently enough that ammo replenishment is in the positive.

I dont like the poor auto aiming of akarius , i prefer the sepulchrum or epitaph if i wanna see some explosions.

For semi auto i take my kuva brakk , catchmoon , vaykor marelok or mara detron (tenet detron will probably replace that)

Primary selection is much more varied as ammo issues are less prevalent for primaries (and the one exilus mod that adds actual DPS and utility also exists for them),

i usually pair the primary and secondary weapons based on their damage effects , one for fodder clearance (rapid fire/ AOE) and one for focused damage , though both can fill either space in a pinch,

So i am not in need of a play style assist as i do not pick weapons that cannot get the job done.

[(XBOX)Hyperion Rexx]

23 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Good for you mate , you have managed to use weapons with drawbacks by using other tools available to you , very commendable.

Remember, that weapon may also have advantages, hence why you're considering it.  And if "by using other tools available", you mean "put a build together", then yeah, commendable indeed.

 

27 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

You are still missing the picture that other weapons exist that can do better without having to depend on those tools and does not need planning.

Yep, not all weapons are created equal.   Never have been, never will be, and nor should they be.   And "better" is a tad subjective as we don't know the reason for wanting to use the weapon with lower ammo economy - chances are good that it has some aspect to it that makes it a good choice regardless of the efficiency issue.

 

32 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

One could intentionally take the harder route with more effort if one wishes , congrats on being that guy.

Bearing in mind we're specifically talking about ammo economy here, this seems a smidge hyperbolic considering how ridiculously easy it is to negate those issues.   No congratulations required really for slotting one mod, or dropping an ammo pad.   And if the resources to make an ammo pad are an issue, then I'm sorry, I can't take this discussion seriously. 

[0_The_F00l]

4 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

Bearing in mind we're specifically talking about ammo economy here, this seems a smidge hyperbolic considering how ridiculously easy it is to negate those issues.   No congratulations required really for slotting one mod, or dropping an ammo pad.   And if the resources to make an ammo pad are an issue, then I'm sorry, I can't take this discussion seriously. 

Oh no , making something in the foundry by clicking two buttons is much harder than you may think , it is a very hard thing to do and people do need to be congratulated for it , cause no one else possibly thought of it before now.

8 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

Yep, not all weapons are created equal.   Never have been, never will be, and nor should they be.   And "better" is a tad subjective as we don't know the reason for wanting to use the weapon with lower ammo economy - chances are good that it has some aspect to it that makes it a good choice regardless of the efficiency issue.

Give me an example (for a valid use case ) that I cannot top with a better ammo efficient weapon and I will give up the argument right now.

10 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

Remember, that weapon may also have advantages, hence why you're considering it.  And if "by using other tools available", you mean "put a build together", then yeah, commendable indeed.

Absolutely , making a build around needing ammo for an ammo hungry weapon is commendable , those that simply choose better weapons should feel ashamed.

[Heiven]

3 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I can't really force my ideas upon you mate , and I am sorry if you can't understand it.

Who said that i was expecting you to force me? I only wanted from you to be more consisted AND Clear with your ideas and what exactly you wanted to achieve with these changes!  You start this topic about damage vs availability, something about the ammo mutation mods and then shift the argument to disparity between different ammo types but at the same time you do take in a count damage vs availability, but add the factor of ammo based per hit damage and "relation between max ammo capacity of the weapon and the dropped ammo recieved". Probably that's why the ammo drops are one tenth of the max ammo.

At first i thought that you wanted to limit the amount of ammo we can have (you made it sound like that), but after the edit its clear its the opposite of that(even if you want to argue that for you heavy weapons its not the case!?!?). And from the latest comment to me is clear that your main POINT is that you want to change the entire ammo economy in order to not have to use the ammo mutation mods. And please don't give the BS about "but with per hit dmg and scaling the ammo from higher dmg to lower" would change any thing when in your example it takes just 10 ammo drops to go from ammo empty gun to fully loaded.

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Also , do you have a habit of quoting things out of context , not a good habit? If you read again properly, the part of not needing ammo mutation was when we were talking about buffs that add fire rate. So if I had a certain build without ammo mutation  , and got buffed such that I chewed ammo more rapidly I would pace myself by "trigger discipline" as I would still be doing the same damage per bullet and so still need the same ammo. Hope that is clear.

I did what? I miss quoted you!? But how can this be!? Ol wait maybe is because of the words in the brackets!? The words in brackets?

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I also have never really felt a need for ammo mutation when using high fire rate weapons (with or without buffs), probably to do with trigger discipline than actual problem with the weapons for primary. But if i try teh same with secondary , i will definitely lose out very quickly

But we are talking about when you get buffs to fire rate, yeah right! So the words "or without buffs" is what a typo? And don't excuse yourself with the "trigger discipline" because if it was only based to that you wouldn't mentions the words in the brackets!

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Weapons that do low per shot damage would be light weapons , ones that do much higher per shot damage would be heavy weapons. And they would take the equivalent ammo.

Yes yes your naming is awesome. But i talk specifically to how you ammo changes wont differ from what we currently have in game. Also how exactly did you came up with the numbers for the ammo for you 3 category's? And more specifically how did you determent the ammo drops would balance your damage vs availability, when its clear as day that you would have plenty of availability even if you fire Rambo style non stop!?

4 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I disagree . As I haven't really said what would be the drop chance of respective ammo types.

FIRST let me applaud you, because i respect funny BS like this, But in the name of discussions i still have to criticize you for it! So without further ado WTF is this BS? So i can't argue  about this part because you your self didn't add the numbers as how it would be?!

Well ........................................ when can we expect them? In the post after mine or in a day or two in your main post!? I mean that the problem you have with this topic is that its half baked. In you main post you lay some minimal information on top of similar information for massive changes with the only reason as "I think it's time we got an ammo rework (considering DE are trying to "bridge the gap" this seems like a good time)". Then throughout the replies you add more and more info as how you expect it to work and what the problems in your view are.

If this by your own accord is too much information for a distinction in the "general discussions tab" then im sorry but if you expect to have just vague half assed discussions in which we should agree with you then the "off topic section" would be the best place for this!

3 hours ago, 0_The_F00l said:

I really do not see a flaw in my logic , but I have a feeling you are focusing on a smaller aspect of the larger topic

Now you can say that im quoting you out of context! But why did you put this topic in the general tab instead of the feedback if your that sure and want real changes for the ammo?

[(XBOX)Hyperion Rexx]

22 minutes ago, 0_The_F00l said:

Oh no , making something in the foundry by clicking two buttons is much harder than you may think , it is a very hard thing to do and people do need to be congratulated for it , cause no one else possibly thought of it before now.

Give me an example (for a valid use case ) that I cannot top with a better ammo efficient weapon and I will give up the argument right now.

Absolutely , making a build around needing ammo for an ammo hungry weapon is commendable , those that simply choose better weapons should feel ashamed.

Your first point.   I agree, its ridiculously easy, so why are you the one wanting a rework to the entire ammo system as a solution?

Your second point.  First off, your definition of a "valid use case" is subjective.  As is the word "better".   But, in a (probably useless) attempt at playing along, say I want to use a shotgun.  Now, from my early days I've always had a soft spot for both the sobek and astilla.   With the sobek, I never seem to have ammo problems, but with the astilla I do frequently.   I like both guns a lot, but tbh, the astilla probably edges it cos I prefer the noise, the way it looks, I like that its slug rather than pellet, and so I choose that one, because I just prefer it.  The sobek won't give me any ammo problems,  and at low level can clear whole mobs so has a cple of advantages, and yet I prefer the other despite its flaw.   Not everything comes down to a pure dps decision.

Your third point comes across as just snarky tbh and I dont think deserves a proper answer.  I'm going to bow out of the discussion now seeing as we've got to the childish response stage.   I feel I've put my pov across although it disagrees with yours.  Anything beyond this looks like its just gonna be pointless arguing over something that is essentially a non issue.

[0_The_F00l]

13 minutes ago, Heiven said:

Who said that i was expecting you to force me? I only wanted from you to be more consisted AND Clear with your ideas and what exactly you wanted to achieve with these changes!  You start this topic about damage vs availability, something about the ammo mutation mods and then shift the argument to disparity between different ammo types but at the same time you do take in a count damage vs availability, but add the factor of ammo based per hit damage and "relation between max ammo capacity of the weapon and the dropped ammo recieved". Probably that's why the ammo drops are one tenth of the max ammo.

At first i thought that you wanted to limit the amount of ammo we can have (you made it sound like that), but after the edit its clear its the opposite of that(even if you want to argue that for you heavy weapons its not the case!?!?). And from the latest comment to me is clear that your main POINT is that you want to change the entire ammo economy in order to not have to use the ammo mutation mods. And please don't give the BS about "but with per hit dmg and scaling the ammo from higher dmg to lower" would change any thing when in your example it takes just 10 ammo drops to go from ammo empty gun to fully loaded.

 

You are free to take is as you wish mate , I can't make things clearer.

 

13 minutes ago, Heiven said:

I did what? I miss quoted you!? But how can this be!? Ol wait maybe is because of the words in the brackets!? The words in brackets?

But we are talking about when you get buffs to fire rate, yeah right! So the words "or without buffs" is what a typo? And don't excuse yourself with the "trigger discipline" because if it was only based to that you wouldn't mentions the words in the brackets!

Did you not miss the part where I am saying it's fine on primaries but will have issues on secondaries? You even quoted it again.

13 minutes ago, Heiven said:

 

Yes yes your naming is awesome. But i talk specifically to how you ammo changes wont differ from what we currently have in game. Also how exactly did you came up with the numbers for the ammo for you 3 category's? And more specifically how did you determent the ammo drops would balance your damage vs availability, when its clear as day that you would have plenty of availability even if you fire Rambo style non stop!?

 

Did you not read ? The changes are impactful for secondary weapons but minor for primaries!

The numbers are actually pretty easy , if you look at the different ammo capacities of weapons that already exist.

And I have yet to give you any actual drop chance on the different ammo types so you do not actually know how quickly you will get those drops.

What if you got 10 launcher ammo drops every ... 100 enemies? or 10% chance to drop from a heavy enemy. Feeling like rambo now?

15 minutes ago, Heiven said:

 

FIRST let me applaud you, because i respect funny BS like this, But in the name of discussions i still have to criticize you for it! So without further ado WTF is this BS? So i can't argue  about this part because you your self didn't add the numbers as how it would be?!

Well ........................................ when can we expect them? In the post after mine or in a day or two in your main post!? I mean that the problem you have with this topic is that its half baked. In you main post you lay some minimal information on top of similar information for massive changes with the only reason as "I think it's time we got an ammo rework (considering DE are trying to "bridge the gap" this seems like a good time)". Then throughout the replies you add more and more info as how you expect it to work and what the problems in your view are.

 

Wow , take a deep breath , remember that it's a game ,but  There are actual human beings on the other side of your keyboard. Getting pissed and angry will defintely be bad for your health. It will also leave a bad impression on people when you are unable to keep a calm and civil tone on a public forum.

, anyway here is my drop chance proposal.

Light ammo : 50% chance to drop from any enemy.

Medium ammo : 30% chance to drop from regular gunners (Lancers , dera crewmen etc) , 10% chance to drop from any enemy.

Heavy ammo: : 50% chance to drop from heavy enemies , 20% chance to drop from regular gunners.

Fuel cells : 20% chance from heavies , 30% chance from fuel gunners (napalm , flux rifle crewmen)

Launcher ammo : 10% chance from regular gunners , 30% chance to  drop from heavies.

Feeling calm now ? I hope so

26 minutes ago, Heiven said:

.If this by your own accord is too much information for a distinction in the "general discussions tab" then im sorry but if you expect to have just vague half assed discussions in which we should agree with you then the "off topic section" would be the best place for this!

You do realise that a discussion doesn't necessarily mean an argument (though it does have its fair share of arguments) , it is to get views from all interested parties (positive and negative). So that it can later be turned into a feedback. Which I usually do , and many times the end feedback is very different from the starting post in case my opinions change over the course of the discussion.

Considering we are talking about warframe mechanics , this is very much in the right place.

31 minutes ago, Heiven said:

Now you can say that im quoting you out of context! But why did you put this topic in the general tab instead of the feedback if your that sure and want real changes for the ammo?

I will defintely say you are taking things out of context , cause that comment was made after multiple conversations with the person that it was directed to, which was purely on ammo mutation mods and had a possibility to derail the thread from its purpose of discusaing ammo economy to discussing mod utilization.

[0_The_F00l]

13 minutes ago, (XBOX)Hyperion Rexx said:

Your first point.   I agree, its ridiculously easy, so why are you the one wanting a rework to the entire ammo system as a solution?

Your second point.  First off, your definition of a "valid use case" is subjective.  As is the word "better".   But, in a (probably useless) attempt at playing along, say I want to use a shotgun.  Now, from my early days I've always had a soft spot for both the sobek and astilla.   With the sobek, I never seem to have ammo problems, but with the astilla I do frequently.   I like both guns a lot, but tbh, the astilla probably edges it cos I prefer the noise, the way it looks, I like that its slug rather than pellet, and so I choose that one, because I just prefer it.  The sobek won't give me any ammo problems,  and at low level can clear whole mobs so has a cple of advantages, and yet I prefer the other despite its flaw.   Not everything comes down to a pure dps decision.

Your third point comes across as just snarky tbh and I dont think deserves a proper answer.  I'm going to bow out of the discussion now seeing as we've got to the childish response stage.   I feel I've put my pov across although it disagrees with yours.  Anything beyond this looks like its just gonna be pointless arguing over something that is essentially a non issue.

My apologies for the snark , it was not directed towards you. But it was definitely childish on my part.

As to why I want a rework ? I want most importantly , secondary weapons to have ammo as per it's categories for more consistency. And while I am at it , would like better ammo economy to act as balancing mechanic , not just something to be ignored by brute force or other mechanics that bypass it.

As to the weapon choice.

There really is no accounting for taste , so I cannot really quantify a feel good factor.

But if you liked the reverb of the astilla (which is in essence a single pellet auto shotgun with aoe on impact) the trumna comes close and performs admirably better. Perhaps the Arca plasmor would be close from function perspective.

Sobek is acceptably efficient in my opinion for an auto hitscan shotgun, 

[Corvid]

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

Except they quite frequently are— given that most of the newer bullet hoses are elemental primers/ips stackers. If you have decided to use the afuris or somesuch expecting equity, that's on you.
But, since you, conveniently, neglected to bring this up though I figured I would do it for you...

I didn't bring it up because (and this may be a shock to you) I'm of the opinion that weapons should be able to stand on their own merits.

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

Likewise, you neglected to address the inanity of expecting to fill the two different pistol types (with two entirely different capacities) at the same speed—I can only guess this is because you don't have a decent explanation for holding that expectation.

Perhaps because that was never my argument to begin with? When you assert that I'm arguing something I clearly am not, there's no point in addressing it, especially after you've already accused me of being a dishonest interlocuter.

Bit of advice: Don't put words in other people's mouth.

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

Why call it a bullet hose then? You don't know—You just want your ammo without having to waste time planning for it. Which was the intent with Bullet hoses to begin with.

I've already addressed this. Bullet hoses are not bullet hoses because they constantly run out of ammo and take ages to restock. They're called that because of a high mag capacity and fire rate. How fast they get that ammo back is quite literally irrelevant to the archetype.

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

Your argument simply doesn't pass muster because it doesn't make sense.

Don't get mad at me about that... It's your argument.

No, it's the argument you've made up and attributed to me in order to make dismissing me easier.

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

On the contrary, I fully understand what you are trying to do and disagree completely.

No, based on empirical evidence, you do not.

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

In this case, you expect a high ROF weapon to have the ammo economy of a low ROF instead and want the game changed to support that.

I want all weapons to be capable of sustaining themselves.

Or at the very least, I want there to be consistency so one archetype isn't left in the dust. If that means a reduction in ammo gains for other weapons instead of an increase for bullet hoses, so be it.

11 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

If we apply your logic to Hand Cannons it would assert that a Hand Cannon should never need to be reloaded then. Why? Because the downsides of low clip/ammo count shouldn't apply as it "disproportionately punishes players by comparison" 

You seem to be forgetting that low ammo efficiency isn't the only drawback of the archetype in the game currently. They also have lower damage per shot, generally higher scatter, and in the case of weapons with large mag sizes, long reload times. Fixing the ammo economy would simply allow them to compete on an equal footing.

Hell, you don't even need to look outside this game to see that. DE used pretty much my exact logic when they changed the value of Rifle ammo pickups from 20 to 60. Before that change, automatic rifles generally fell off in usefulness much quicker than shotguns, snipers and semi-autos due to them expending more than they got back. Since the change, they've become competitive without being overly dominant.

All I'm asking for is a similar change so that secondary automatics get the same benefit.

[NocheLuz]

Right now, the only issue with ammo is with low-damage, high fire-rate, high ammo-reserve type gun... Ex. Grakata especially, Twin Grakatas. Let me explain, Twin Grakatas have 120 ammo in magazine and 1200 ammo reserve. From its fire rate, it can empty the entire magazine in 3 seconds (20 ammo per second but it uses 2 ammo per shot). However, secondary ammo pick-up only gives you 20 ammo. Meaning for 1 magazine, you'll have to pick up 6 secondary ammo pack to fill it up.

However, Twin Grakatas is low damage type gun. It can only kill a few enemies before empty its magazine. Meaning you get almost no ammo back, even with ammo mutation (remember, it is a secondary, ammo mutation for secondary give out very low ammo count). This is an issue for a long mission or boss fight. Which is the main point of this game.

Now, you may say some stupid things like 'Why don't use other guns?'. Well... It is stupid because if you can only use one type of the one for one mission... it is meaning you'll have almost no use for them at all. I enjoy using machine gun/submachine gun-type guns, but I have to use Opticor due to its high ammo efficiency in most of my endless mission. Or else I'll have to get out in no more than 20 mins because I have no ammo to fight and I consider using melee to fight is the very last resort for this game.

 

[Rakosta_Kai]

7 hours ago, Corvid said:

I didn't bring it up because (and this may be a shock to you) I'm of the opinion that weapons should be able to stand on their own merits.

Merits, determine drawbacks in this game. It's your job to mod around those drawbacks. This definitely isn't news to you which suggests to me that you've opted to mislead by not ensuring it was an issue for consideration. Opting not to bring it up and making a "one size should fit all" argument seems a bit deceptive to me.

The fact that you devolved to ad hominems to bolster your arguments feels like an effort to cover the difference. 

7 hours ago, Corvid said:

Perhaps because that was never my argument to begin with? When you assert that I'm arguing something I clearly am not, there's no point in addressing it, especially after you've already accused me of being a dishonest interlocuter.

Bit of advice: Don't put words in other people's mouth.

7 hours ago, Corvid said:

No, it's the argument you've made up and attributed to me in order to make dismissing me easier.

Your idea to re-invent ammo replenishment to make weapons of different capacities fill at the same speed removes the differences between the weapon in the first place is the argument in question.

It's needless.
It's not sensible.
It removes the drawbacks the developers put in simply to convenience you and remove the need for you to plan accordingly instead.
And... remedies exist in-game already.

If that's the argument I've made up, then why restate it in your reply a day later?...↓

7 hours ago, Corvid said:

I want all weapons to be capable of sustaining themselves.

Or at the very least, I want there to be consistency so one archetype isn't left in the dust. If that means a reduction in ammo gains for other weapons instead of an increase for bullet hoses, so be it.

I don't ever accuse people of being dishonest lightly.

You, sir, are being dishonest.

You engaged in personal attacks and bullying yesterday because I didn't agree with you and have attempted to call me a liar today in the hopes it would lend some measure of credence to your argument.

I have to profess to being thoroughly disappointed— I actually expected better from you.

8 hours ago, Corvid said:

You seem to be forgetting that low ammo efficiency isn't the only drawback of the archetype in the game currently. They also have lower damage per shot, generally higher scatter, and in the case of weapons with large mag sizes, long reload times. Fixing the ammo economy would simply allow them to compete on an equal footing.

Hell, you don't even need to look outside this game to see that. DE used pretty much my exact logic when they changed the value of Rifle ammo pickups from 20 to 60. Before that change, automatic rifles generally fell off in usefulness much quicker than shotguns, snipers and semi-autos due to them expending more than they got back. Since the change, they've become competitive without being overly dominant.

All I'm asking for is a similar change so that secondary automatics get the same benefit.

All weapons have drawbacks intentionally. Making this specific argument moot.
This then becomes the province of drilling down on specific weapons with specific issues alone as opposed to re-inventing the wheel for the mechanic as a whole.

You want to tag me in whatever forum post you make discussing a specific weapon?
I'll march right beside you if I agree with it...
Likewise, I will point out why I don't agree with it if that's the case as well.

In this case, I don't agree with your current idea and have given my reasons "why" already.
 

[Surbusken]

It's another one of those examples of lacking a conceptual baseline.

You have ember instant casting, then you also have lavos with a 9 secs cooldown. Conceptually you have to land on rules for the game, is it supposed to be instant and constant spam, tactical with reload and taking cover, what is the concept.

Same thing applies to damage, everyone is always arguing what is too much or what is too little, but there is no baseline.

 

Reloading in this game does not exist for me. In my mind the game is a turbo speedrun, where you straight up have to be able to fight while moving at the highest possible speed, to keep up.

No one has 2 seconds to stand around and reload - just like if casting speed isn't balanced towards the same baseline, other people will get the kills, so like all burst spam casting classes should have the same number, but again there is no concept of anything.

Reloading should tie into the overall concept, into a gameplay class or weapon class with certain properties, rock, paper scissor, what was the reward for spending 2-3 seconds reloading while ember and saryn cleaned out the whole map in a 0.75 seconds cast?

Same thing with guns vs melee, rather than being just numbers they need an actual gameplay concept.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

4 hours ago, Surbusken said:

It's another one of those examples of lacking a conceptual baseline.

You have ember instant casting, then you also have lavos with a 9 secs cooldown. Conceptually you have to land on rules for the game, is it supposed to be instant and constant spam, tactical with reload and taking cover, what is the concept.

Same thing applies to damage, everyone is always arguing what is too much or what is too little, but there is no baseline.

 

Reloading in this game does not exist for me. In my mind the game is a turbo speedrun, where you straight up have to be able to fight while moving at the highest possible speed, to keep up.

No one has 2 seconds to stand around and reload - just like if casting speed isn't balanced towards the same baseline, other people will get the kills, so like all burst spam casting classes should have the same number, but again there is no concept of anything.

Reloading should tie into the overall concept, into a gameplay class or weapon class with certain properties, rock, paper scissor, what was the reward for spending 2-3 seconds reloading while ember and saryn cleaned out the whole map in a 0.75 seconds cast?

Same thing with guns vs melee, rather than being just numbers they need an actual gameplay concept.

You don't need a concept...it's a sandbox. People can play how they want. 

Plan how you want to play the mission, do it...exit....pick a different way to play etc. If you want to play one way for 5 years straight then do that as well.

[(XBOX)Hyperion Rexx]

5 hours ago, Surbusken said:

It's another one of those examples of lacking a conceptual baseline.

You have ember instant casting, then you also have lavos with a 9 secs cooldown. Conceptually you have to land on rules for the game, is it supposed to be instant and constant spam, tactical with reload and taking cover, what is the concept.

Same thing applies to damage, everyone is always arguing what is too much or what is too little, but there is no baseline.

 

4 minutes ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

You don't need a concept...it's a sandbox. People can play how they want. 

Plan how you want to play the mission, do it...exit....pick a different way to play etc. If you want to play one way for 5 years straight then do that as well.

 

I find myself in the rather curious position of agreeing with madurai here.

It isn't "supposed" to be either of the two extremes of constant spam or cover shooter, you can choose either of those if that's what you find fun, but there's a large area in between those two positions aswell.   There is no right way to play wf, there is only the way you yourself find enjoyment from, and that may change from one mission to the next.   There are of course optimal builds for things like max damage, efficient farming, speed running etc, but that's just meta chasing (I have nothing against using meta loadouts btw).  Below that pinnacle is a mountain of choices.

As far as concept goes, for me and many others its just to have fun using whatever frame and weapons I feel like.  WF achieves that, at least for me, and going by the player numbers, an awful lot of other players think the same.

[Surbusken]

1 hour ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

You don't need a concept...it's a sandbox. People can play how they want. 

Plan how you want to play the mission, do it...exit....pick a different way to play etc. If you want to play one way for 5 years straight then do that as well.

Sandbox is a concept, it's literally a concrete genre, with clear lines and rules of gameplay...

 

A video game without a concept is like a movie without a plot or a lore universe with no internal rules or consistency, I mean it's everything.

The hulk cannot be a down to earth, calm professor because the in-universe concept dictates he is pure rage. The wolverine cannot die in logan, because his core power is healing.

It also applies to PR narratives, reality is not what you'd just like to be able to say.

I know things are a little confused here in the skinny jeans, with a lot of classic franchises tumbling off a cliff, where it might seem like you can just do as you like, whatever narrative you can get away with on twitter becomes reality, because it's less work but no, rules and discipline and hard work I am afraid.

 

Well we don't have weapon or damage balance in this game because it's sandbox!!!!1 lol.

Yeah we certainly have someone not willing to do the work, is what we have. Whatever the story is, reality is still it has to have that, you can't out-story reality, it just is.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

11 minutes ago, Surbusken said:

Sandbox is a concept, it's literally a concrete genre, with clear lines and rules of gameplay...

 

A video game without a concept is like a movie without a plot or a lore universe with no internal rules or consistency, I mean it's everything.

The hulk cannot be a down to earth, calm professor because the in-universe concept dictates he is pure rage. The wolverine cannot die in logan, because his core power is healing.

It also applies to PR narratives, reality is not what you'd just like to be able to say.

I know things are a little confused here in the skinny jeans, with a lot of classic franchises tumbling off a cliff, where it might seem like you can just do as you like, whatever narrative you can get away with on twitter becomes reality, because it's less work but no, rules and discipline and hard work I am afraid.

 

Well we don't have weapon or damage balance in this game because it's sandbox!!!!1 lol.

Yeah we certainly have someone not willing to do the work, is what we have. Whatever the story is, reality is still it has to have that, you can't out-story reality, it just is.

....Sure....Or....

It's a private company....they're literally allowed to do whatever they want, within their own limits. The limits are decided by entities that aren't you as well.

They still get support from players even though they're breaking all these imaginary rules you made up....how are they still doing fine?

[Surbusken]

41 minutes ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

....Sure....Or....

It's a private company....they're literally allowed to do whatever they want, within their own limits. The limits are decided by entities that aren't you as well.

They still get support from players even though they're breaking all these imaginary rules you made up....how are they still doing fine?

Same reason transformers and power rangers are giant franchises?

Or McD is the best selling food, or justin bieber has a career even at all, or jake paul is fighting floyd mayweather for 100 million...

 

But hadn't you just said there weren't any rules because it was sandbox.

Now you are saying there is an internal consistency, are you just making it up as you type, having no idea where you are going with any of it?

They are formulaic and generic, just not in the areas where they should be. When it comes time to add a grind it's highly structured and conceptual, mechanical, copy-pasted by the book.

When it comes time to put in work they don't like it's chaos and it's entirely about work ethic and respect of your customer, they can get away with a total lack of concept, balance and vision exactly because people like not just let them get away with it, but straight up apologize for them... if that answers your question, how it is possible.

Because you are an enabler is why.

[Aldain]

8 hours ago, Padre_Akais said:

It's your job to mod around those drawbacks.

While I agree on paper, there are some weapons that just can't because of how mods work.

The Ambassador, a recently released MR10 rifle as it currently is cannot get past the drawback of having the same base damage as the MR0 Braton and a similar base Crit chance. The Charge Shot mode isn't much better, only two shots per 96 round magazine and the 6m radius on the AoE is currently bugged and seems to not function right.

The older Stahlta does basically everything it does, but better, the Fulmin achieves the two different fire modes concept better because both modes are good for something.

I can only agree with the "It's your job to mod around drawbacks" if the drawbacks aren't on the level of the Ambassador, where the baseline function of the weapon gets in the way of it actually properly interacting with the mod system (which is strictly percentage based with no flat increase options for things that have low bases).