Galvanized Melee Mods

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

In my opinion, melee is currently in somewhat of a mediocre state.

To me, the issue is that melee has been outclassed by primary/secondary weapons due to power creep like the addition of galvanized mods (among other things).

I would like to see Galvanized mods for melee as well. I suggest a something like Galvanized Steel - stats and effect to replace Sacrificial Steel and Blood Rush, Galvanized Overload - stats and effect to replace Condition Overload and Weeping Wounds. I think these 2 mods with help bring melee back into balance. I am not going to suggest the percentages because I am not looking at all of the data, however the Galvanized mods for primary/secondary were fairly generous and I think it should be similar for melee.

let me know your thoughts!

[(PSN)Hikuro-93]

I wouldn't be against it, and while I do find that melee is somewhat underperforming guns, I don't feel like they're in a bad place at all.

What's ironical and funny is that the galvanized mods were created with the express purpose of mimicking melee damage scaling and bring guns to the same level of melee, back then, so I also do find this post somewhat funny. 

We've come full circle. 

Edited August 14, 2023 by (PSN)Hikuro-93
grammar

[BroDutt]

In term of damage (reasons you want Galvanised for melee), melee weapon is on par with primary with galvanised. It's just because you have to rely on combo and close quarter combat (most of them except glaive & gunblade) why melee is less favorable now.

There's a reason why Glaive Prime overperform most primary. Exodia Contagion once so powerful (even when some primary already had Galvanised mod) they had to nerfed it.

So what we need is not Galvanised mods for melee but add arcane like Exodia set to be used on it.

Edited August 14, 2023 by BroDutt

[(PSN)haphazardlynamed]

Melee is fine as is.

Just yesterday I bought the Primsa Ohma from Baro as MR Fodder

no potato and no forma, just what mods I could fit, and it was perfectly viable in SP.

while with a typical gun, a potato and 3+ forma is practically required to bring into SP

the discrepancy in effort is huge.

 

The whole point of Galvanized mods, was that DE noted in SP guns were simply not competitive and everyone was defaulting to Melee.

That is why Guns have Galvanized mods, but Melee does not.

[chaotea]

Melee already had 'galvanised mods' in everything but name. Mods like weaping wounds.

[(PSN)Joylesstuna]

I would melee to not be the only valid option again like it was for over 5 years. Melee is in a very healthy spot.

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

5 hours ago, (PSN)haphazardlynamed said:

Melee is fine as is.

—————————————————

The whole point of Galvanized mods, was that DE noted in SP guns were simply not competitive and everyone was defaulting to Melee.

That is why Guns have Galvanized mods, but Melee does not.

I think this statement you made proves my point honestly. Melee is not fine as it is. I am a solo player who only runs in public missions. The vast majority of players default to primary/secondary weapons in SP/Arbi.
 

While I understand what DE’s intention was, I feel that the power has crept back over to primary/secondary weapons. They did accomplish bringing some more outdated/outclassed primary/secondary weapons back into play; which is good, however it has pushed many newer ranged weapons to a point to which melee cannot compete with.

The fact of the matter is that the only way melee weapons can somewhat compete with primary/secondary weapons right now is with a full 12X combo with Blood Rush, Weeping Wounds and Gladiator mods. Even then it feels pretty anemic once enemies get above level ~140 or so in SP. Heavy attack builds are also somewhat competitive, but require a different play-style that many people do not prefer. 
 

6 hours ago, BroDutt said:

There's a reason why Glaive Prime overperform most primary. Exodia Contagion once so powerful (even when some primary already had Galvanised mod) they had to nerfed it.

I don’t think posting an example of one meta “melee” weapon is really a sound argument for why melee is fine. Not everyone wants to use the meta. With primary/secondary weapons, you have options and you can still be competitive. With melee, you are forced to choose between the meta or a select few weapons that can be somewhat competitive only after gaining a 12X combo. 
 

TLDW on my original post:

Primary/secondary weapons SHOULD be less powerful than melee, as you can safely stand out of harms way or spam bullet jumping and clear a room with an AOE weapon. Melee weapons require you to be in the middle of a horde of enemies to be effective.

[Tiltskillet]

3 hours ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

Primary/secondary weapons SHOULD be less powerful than melee, as you can safely stand out of harms way or spam bullet jumping and clear a room with an AOE weapon.

True in a lot of games, kind of a mixed bag in this one where melee has so much AoE, we have so much mobility, and enemy AI and/or invuln cheese limits the number of attacks we need to tank per second.  Spammable AoE ranged weapons seem very safe to mecompared to melee.  Weapons that are single target not so much, and feeling more and more dangerous as they get slower and require more aiming.  For me the continuum looks very roughly like this when I'm playing a squishy frame, from most dangerous to least:

Slow ST weapons

Bullet hoses

ST shotguns with some spread // not-so-spammable AoE

Most melee  // wide projectile ranged weapons

Spammable AoE

Spammable AoE with status immunity

 

It's interesting to imagine how things would look different if DE follows up on their supposed plans to reintroduce self-damage. That might be the only buff melee needs. Still unsatisfying to me in that melee should ideally be closer to high risk / high reward, but a better looking ecosystem than now.  (Leaving aside all the other issues self-damage could create.)

Edited August 14, 2023 by Tiltskillet

[(PSN)Sentiel]

Not Galvanized mods exactly, but melee Arcanes other than the ones for Zaws would be nice. Not as much for damage as for QoL stuff.

As far as damage goes, my experience with melee is such that it creates literally millions of damage per hit, at the cost of being short ranged...with few exceptions.

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

33 minutes ago, (PSN)Sentiel said:

Not Galvanized mods exactly, but melee Arcanes other than the ones for Zaws would be nice. Not as much for damage as for QoL stuff.

I would agree with adding melee Arcanes. I still feel that Galvanized mods would help melee balance out with primary/secondaries though.

For those who are against the addition of Galvanized melee mods, I’m curious as to what your reasoning is. the two Galvanized mods that I suggested would essentially just free up 2 mod slots on a melee build. That is simply a QoL improvement and a moderate damage increase. That would give us the ability to run Primed Reach and Primed Fury on more builds that suffer from low range or slow attack speed. It would also give us the ability to add elements to certain builds that wouldn’t normally be possible due to all of the other QoL mods needed to bring the weapon up to par.
 

In contrast, the primary/secondary Galvanized mods DRASTICALLY increase the overall damage output of these weapons; especially in conjunction with the primary/secondary Arcanes. Most primary/secondary weapon builds easily have room for QoL mods (like fire rate or punch-through) without the need to sacrifice damage output. I feel that the same should be applicable to melee weapons. Most melee weapon builds require you to sacrifice a substantial amount of damage output in order to slot QoL mods. 
 

I know some will say that there are Arcanes for melee attack speed and damage, but that comes at the cost of Warframe damage output, survivability or any other utility that WF Arcanes provide. Primary/secondary weapons do not need any Warframe Arcane to shred; neither should melee weapons.

 

[(PSN)Sentiel]

20 minutes ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I would agree with adding melee Arcanes. I still feel that Galvanized mods would help melee balance out with primary/secondaries though.

For those who are against the addition of Galvanized melee mods, I’m curious as to what your reasoning is. the two Galvanized mods that I suggested would essentially just free up 2 mod slots on a melee build. That is simply a QoL improvement and a moderate damage increase. That would give us the ability to run Primed Reach and Primed Fury on more builds that suffer from low range or slow attack speed. It would also give us the ability to add elements to certain builds that wouldn’t normally be possible due to all of the other QoL mods needed to bring the weapon up to par.
 

In contrast, the primary/secondary Galvanized mods DRASTICALLY increase the overall damage output of these weapons; especially in conjunction with the primary/secondary Arcanes. Most primary/secondary weapon builds easily have room for QoL mods (like fire rate or punch-through) without the need to sacrifice damage output. I feel that the same should be applicable to melee weapons. Most melee weapon builds require you to sacrifice a substantial amount of damage output in order to slot QoL mods. 
 

I know some will say that there are Arcanes for melee attack speed and damage, but that comes at the cost of Warframe damage output, survivability or any other utility that WF Arcanes provide. Primary/secondary weapons do not need any Warframe Arcane to shred; neither should melee weapons.

 

The reason I prefer Arcanes over Galvanized mods is because with Arcanes we can create a synergy between the weapons, which would help melee more than numerical buffs to the damage coming from mods, and would encourage weapon switching.

 

For example, we have the Primary/Secondary Dexterity Arcanes which buffs the guns they have it equipped when a melee kill occurs and also increase combo duration, but once you switch to the said buffed gun, nothing buffs the melee back. Your Galvanized mod durations would run out as will the combo eventually. Here, I would add a new melee Arcane (let's call it Melee Dexterity) that would buff the melee weapon when a gun kill occurs while also providing passive reload.

 

We can go a step further and create Arcane set bonuses. Something like: If Dexterity Arcanes are equipped on all weapons, active buffs from holstered weapons are frozen.

This would address the problem we have now, which makes weapon switching undesirable because you would lose your current weapon's buffs and have to activate buffs on the other weapons from scratch.

[(PSN)haphazardlynamed]

9 hours ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I think this statement you made proves my point honestly.

 

UH? no it doesn't. it Disproves your point.

I see plenty of players go Melee focused in SP. With the same total kills as anyone else.

Ranged/Melee are both viable approaches, players can pick based on what the consider More Fun, rather than what's 'meta'.

this is more true now than ever since the recent AoE Spam nerf.

 

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

40 minutes ago, (PSN)haphazardlynamed said:

 

UH? no it doesn't. it Disproves your point.

I see plenty of players go Melee focused in SP. With the same total kills as anyone else.

Ranged/Melee are both viable approaches, players can pick based on what the consider More Fun, rather than what's 'meta'.

this is more true now than ever since the recent AoE Spam nerf.

 

I find it very hard to believe that you see plenty of players primarily using melee. Maybe we have different definitions of plenty. I look at the mission stats after every mission and I would strongly disagree. I would estimate the usage to be about 70% ranged/30% melee at best.
 

Also, I feel like it should go without saying that exalted melees should be ruled out of consideration when looking at melee usage.

[emmyemi]

I honestly would like it if it wasn't so difficult to maintain combo count without Drifting Contact or Naramon. The former feels like a waste of a mod slot, while the latter doesn't really have any utility other than improved combo gain and decay.

Galvanized buffs last for 20s and decays over time. This gives you time to move rooms or reposition if you need to without losing the entire buff even if you drop a stack. Melee combo lasts 5s by default, can only be increased by either sacrificing a mod slot or sacrificing your Focus school, and you lose ALL stacks at once. It's really just inconvenient to keep combo count active unless you are building specifically for it, but most of the time I like to swap between melee and ranged, not build exclusively for one or the other.

[Joezone619]

Not needed, besides it goes against the entire reason galvanized mods and primary/secondary arcanes even exist, to bring guns up to speed with melee.

[CrownOfShadows]

While I agree that melee may be slightly underperforming compared to primaries and secondaries, I don't think galvanized mods are necessary. Boosting condition overload back up just a tiny amount (like even 5% or 10%) would probably be enough to elevate them into good contention, they nerfed it so incredibly hard and never adjusted it. I also agree with some of the above about problems with keeping melee alive via combo vs just shooting guns. I also really dislike the melee build variety. If they came up with better melee mods that made you choose that would be nice. Every single melee I own is Viral CO Gladiatior Bloodrush. That's lame. So I'm not against new melee mods, but I don't think we need more power necessarily, just more variety.

I wouldn't be against arcanes either, for some of the reasons already mentioned.

My other major current complaints with melee are actually incarnon related. While incarnon primaries and secondaries go into god mode and feel fun and powerful, melee incarnons DO NOTHING. Yes, I know they do 'things', but they don't transform and become super powered, and this is leaving them very far behind. You can't go into incarnon mode and wipe out everyone around you like you can with guns. This results in melee feeling like it got kicked into a closet.

[(PSN)haphazardlynamed]

2 hours ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I would estimate the usage to be about 70% ranged/30% melee at best.
 

That's typically the same number I see too. 1/4 to 1/3 of the squad was melee focused.

I think it is an excellent ratio.

Which again proves my point, that Melee is well balanced vs Ranged at the moment.

 

[(PSN)Joylesstuna]

6 hours ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I find it very hard to believe that you see plenty of players primarily using melee. Maybe we have different definitions of plenty. I look at the mission stats after every mission and I would strongly disagree. I would estimate the usage to be about 70% ranged/30% melee at best.
 

Also, I feel like it should go without saying that exalted melees should be ruled out of consideration when looking at melee usage.

It's much easier to just slap on an aoe weapon and call it a day. However this doesnt mean melee cant keep up. People will choose the easiest way forward. I do plenty of 1 hr sp survival fissures with pure melee and run into no issues with life support.

6 hours ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I find it very hard to believe that you see plenty of players primarily using melee. Maybe we have different definitions of plenty. I look at the mission stats after every mission and I would strongly disagree. I would estimate the usage to be about 70% ranged/30% melee at best.
 

Also, I feel like it should go without saying that exalted melees should be ruled out of consideration when looking at melee usage.

Please ignore the double quote it was a mistake.

Edited August 15, 2023 by (PSN)Joylesstuna

[Silligoose]

On 2023-08-14 at 3:57 AM, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

In my opinion, melee is currently in somewhat of a mediocre state.

To me, the issue is that melee has been outclassed by primary/secondary weapons due to power creep like the addition of galvanized mods (among other things).

I would like to see Galvanized mods for melee as well. I suggest a something like Galvanized Steel - stats and effect to replace Sacrificial Steel and Blood Rush, Galvanized Overload - stats and effect to replace Condition Overload and Weeping Wounds. I think these 2 mods with help bring melee back into balance. I am not going to suggest the percentages because I am not looking at all of the data, however the Galvanized mods for primary/secondary were fairly generous and I think it should be similar for melee.

let me know your thoughts!

I agree with the sentiment that melee is outclassed by ranged weapons, but I believe the reasons for this are multifaceted and as such, addressing melee damage output alone isn't going to have the desired outcome:

Melee isn't lacking in damage in comparison to enemy durability:

 The video below starts at relevant timestamp and you need only watch about a minute, but if you want to save yourself a minute, the tldr is: despite melee nerfs from a few years back equating to around a 45% nerf in overall melee damage, performance in most missions simply isn't affected all that much, because most time is spent actually getting to the enemies and going through the mission, as opposed to killing enemies. Reverting those nerfs by way of new galv mods for melee, won't be very impactful in most missions in terms of overall performance. 

 

Ranged weapons outperform melee options because due to practical mechanics involved and relative enemy durability:

This ties in with the first point. Enemies are, relative to potential weapon damage output, very flimsy when players wield lategame power. As a result, they die incredibly fast, which means time spent getting to the target with melee makes up a significant portion of time spent in the total time it takes from sighting a target, to killing a target. Since ranged weapons do not have to get to the target, time taken from enemy sighted to enemy killed is faster, even if their damage output is lower than that of melee. This tends to even out a little bit as enemies become more durable and players incorporate priming of targets.

Ranged weapons have greater AoE killing potential:

Despite certain ranged options having less DPS on paper than melee options, the AoE damage mechanics allow for them to outperform melee, as the cumulative damage applied to multiple enemies outperforms that of melee.

Some ranged weapons are extremely overpowered and shouldn't serve as the baseline:

Phenmor, Felarx, Bubonico, Bramma... these are exceptional outliers in performance. In order to establish a better balance, their power would ideally be reeled back in, instead of having other options buffed to their level and then having enemy durability buffed in kind.

Damage mechanics favour precise aim:

Weakspot multipliers result in additional damage, which some ranged weapons can take advantage of more easily, provided one has aim.

 

What it all boils down to:

Whilst melee is by no means bad, various factors result in ranged weapons outperforming melee options. Addressing just one of the factors, such as melee damage output, will most likely not have a significant impact on overall relative performance. If the goal is for a better balance to be established with regards to melee vs ranged, various mechanics, including some I may not have touched on, would need to be addressed. The upside is that addressing said mechanics could also lead to the balance in AoE vs single target ranged weapons being improved, the balance of which I believe is a little skewed in favour of ranged AoE.

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

39 minutes ago, Silligoose said:What it all boils down to:

Whilst melee is by no means bad, various factors result in ranged weapons outperforming melee options. Addressing just one of the factors, such as melee damage output, will most likely not have a significant impact on overall relative performance. If the goal is for a better balance to be established with regards to melee vs ranged, various mechanics, including some I may not have touched on, would need to be addressed. The upside is that addressing said mechanics could also lead to the balance in AoE vs single target ranged weapons being improved, the balance of which I believe is a little skewed in favour of ranged AoE.

While I agree with you on the mechanics of melee vs. ranged being partly to blame for the imbalance, I think you are wrong about melee damage output not affecting the usage. People would use melee weapons more often if they were as powerful as ranged weapons.

Before the nerfs to Blood Rush, Condition Overload and Weeping Wounds, melee was used at a much higher rate than ranged weapons. The only reasoning for this is that the damage output was higher, therefore melee weapons were just more effective than ranged weapons. People are not just using ranged weapons because they are lazy, it’s because melee is not as effective as an alternative to ranged weapons. I do agree that AoE vs. single target is a problem and should also be addressed, but that doesn’t change my sentiment. Even single target weapons like the MR8 Fulmin can melt through level 150 SP Eximus Heavy Gunners with the use of Galvanized Mods and a primary Arcane with little to no buildup to the full power potential.

With that being said, why would you be against buffing melee damage output if you don’t think it will have a significant affect the overall usage? 
 

10 hours ago, (PSN)haphazardlynamed said:

That's typically the same number I see too. 1/4 to 1/3 of the squad was melee focused.

I think it is an excellent ratio.

Which again proves my point, that Melee is well balanced vs Ranged at the moment.

 

How is 1/4 to 1/3 of usage balanced? Nobody said it was balanced when melee was being used at these same rates over ranged weapons. Balanced would be 50/50. Plain and simple.

[Silligoose]

34 minutes ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

While I agree with you on the mechanics of melee vs. ranged being partly to blame for the imbalance, I think you are wrong about melee damage output not affecting the usage. People would use melee weapons more often if they were as powerful as ranged weapons.

Before the nerfs to Blood Rush, Condition Overload and Weeping Wounds, melee was used at a much higher rate than ranged weapons. The only reasoning for this is that the damage output was higher, therefore melee weapons were just more effective than ranged weapons. People are not just using ranged weapons because they are lazy, it’s because melee is not as effective as an alternative to ranged weapons. I do agree that AoE vs. single target is a problem and should also be addressed, but that doesn’t change my sentiment. Even single target weapons like the MR8 Fulmin can melt through level 150 SP Eximus Heavy Gunners with the use of Galvanized Mods and a primary Arcane with little to no buildup to the full power potential.

With that being said, why would you be against buffing melee damage output if you don’t think it will have a significant affect the overall usage? 

You can go run a few missions with Roar enabled and see how that affects your mission performance when focussing on melee (assuming you aren't running a faction mod, as Roar's impact will then be less and you'd need to add something else to boost melee damage). In my experience, within encouraged content (SP up to rotation C), it simply doesn't have much of an impact in most missions, because the vast majority of time is spent getting to the enemy, as opposed to slapping around the enemy, because they die so fast. In certain SP missions the impact is greater, because enemy AI is toned down and spawn rates are increased to max regardless of the number of players, but the game is more than just those missions and all mission types should be accounted for.

Even if melee's nerfs are reverted from a few years ago, ranged will remain more effective. Have a go with missions and compare using Roar to not using Roar. Perhaps you experience is different to mine.

I dislike how power creep has led to us easily killing enemies even at the highest levels of encouraged content (and even level cap), as it impacts the game negatively on several fronts:

• It results in devaluing stronger weapons farmed, as the extra damage serves almost no practical purpose.
• Leads to the devolution of gameplay mechanics, as mechanics such as varied damage types, serve little purpose.
• It devalues targeting priority targets: Why shoot the shielding drone first if I can kill the enemy it is shielding easily anyway?
• It results in certain weapon types losing practical value, ie what practical value does a sniper rifle have when I can one-tap enemies with a normal rifle?
• It hinders DE's ability to present more challenging content without nullifying progress or mechanics
• It continues to contribute to the implementation of hidden nerfs, such as Damage Attenuation, which generally leaves players frustrated and confused.

I'm against buffing melee for same reason I am against how high our ranged weapon damage potential is and would like for it to be balanced better: It leads to various downsides, with the upside mainly being big overkill number, which doesn't really interest me and is not a good trade-off in my opinion. Lategame lacks the depth early-to midgame had, in part due to how overpowered our weapon damage is.

[Tiltskillet]

4 hours ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

How is 1/4 to 1/3 of usage balanced? Nobody said it was balanced when melee was being used at these same rates over ranged weapons. Balanced would be 50/50.

Where are you getting 25-33% melee usage from?

Edited August 15, 2023 by Tiltskillet

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

5 hours ago, Tiltskillet said:

Where are you getting 25-33% melee usage from?

I estimate melee usage to be around 30% (maybe even lower) based on what I see in SP/Arbi missions. I don’t have the actual data though. I don’t even know if DE publishes a comparison of weapon type usage (not to be confused with comparing usage of weapons of the same type). It’s just an estimate of what I see on the day-to-day grind.
 

I think for DE to get a somewhat accurate representation of weapon type balance, they would have to look at the data among players who at least have cleared the Star Chart and have started SP/Arbi. 
 

I’ll consider recording some of my own public mission stats (excluding when exalted melee frames are in the mission). 

 

8 hours ago, Silligoose said:

You can go run a few missions with Roar enabled and see how that affects your mission performance when focussing on melee (assuming you aren't running a faction mod, as Roar's impact will then be less and you'd need to add something else to boost melee damage). In my experience, within encouraged content (SP up to rotation C), it simply doesn't have much of an impact in most missions, because the vast majority of time is spent getting to the enemy, as opposed to slapping around the enemy, because they die so fast. In certain SP missions the impact is greater, because enemy AI is toned down and spawn rates are increased to max regardless of the number of players, but the game is more than just those missions and all mission types should be accounted for.

Even if melee's nerfs are reverted from a few years ago, ranged will remain more effective. Have a go with missions and compare using Roar to not using Roar. Perhaps you experience is different to mine.

I dislike how power creep has led to us easily killing enemies even at the highest levels of encouraged content (and even level cap), as it impacts the game negatively on several fronts:

• It results in devaluing stronger weapons farmed, as the extra damage serves almost no practical purpose.
• Leads to the devolution of gameplay mechanics, as mechanics such as varied damage types, serve little purpose.
• It devalues targeting priority targets: Why shoot the shielding drone first if I can kill the enemy it is shielding easily anyway?
• It results in certain weapon types losing practical value, ie what practical value does a sniper rifle have when I can one-tap enemies with a normal rifle?
• It hinders DE's ability to present more challenging content without nullifying progress or mechanics
• It continues to contribute to the implementation of hidden nerfs, such as Damage Attenuation, which generally leaves players frustrated and confused.

I'm against buffing melee for same reason I am against how high our ranged weapon damage potential is and would like for it to be balanced better: It leads to various downsides, with the upside mainly being big overkill number, which doesn't really interest me and is not a good trade-off in my opinion. Lategame lacks the depth early-to midgame had, in part due to how overpowered our weapon damage is.

I do agree with what you’re saying about ranged being more effective than melee even if melee receives a buff. However, I think a lot of people are not using ranged weapons only because they are more effective. I think people use them because they are powerful and effective. People want to feel powerful. It’s what makes the game fun. If melee were more powerful, it would inherently be more effective. Of course, even if ranged and melee theoretically had the same damage output, ranged would be more effective than melee. However, again, I don’t think effectiveness is the main reason ranged weapons are used over melee.

[Tiltskillet]

18 minutes ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I don’t even know if DE publishes a comparison of weapon type usage (not to be confused with comparing usage of weapons of the same type).

Nothing I'm aware of in the last few years.   They might have said some things about melee dominance leading up to the introduction of Galvanized mods, but that won't be helpful now.

20 minutes ago, (XBOX)ZiostShadow said:

I’ll consider recording some of my own public mission stats (excluding when exalted melee frames are in the mission). 

These won't be very useful on their own, since melee kills are the only ones with their own category.

[(XBOX)ZiostShadow]

1 hour ago, Tiltskillet said:

Nothing I'm aware of in the last few years.   They might have said some things about melee dominance leading up to the introduction of Galvanized mods, but that won't be helpful now.

These won't be very useful on their own, since melee kills are the only ones with their own category.

Yeah that’s kind of why I haven’t bothered to record any of my findings. I just observe a consistent discrepancy in total kills vs. melee kills. I rarely see players with a substantial number of melee kills. Several missions I go on, some players will have literally 0 melee kills. I genuinely would be open to being proven wrong, but I am pretty confident that melee usage among mid/endgame players is minimal in comparison to ranged weapons.