Just Something To Think About.

[(PSN)theelix]

How many people do you kill with a bow, without picking up any ammo? 

 

Just about your ammo capacity, right? At around Seventy-two people. More or less, collateral shots and misses, respectively. 

 

How often do you look for ammo with a bow? Not very, right? Usually, you kill seven enemies, one drops a sniper pack, and you get ten more bolts, and you rarely run out. 

 

Now, you may be thinking, this is common knowledge, huh? 

 

This is where I ask you about the new Penta's ammo capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

How many people do you kill with a Penta? Like, ten plus, right? Everyone seems to complain that you have no ammunition, but, ten multiplied by five is fifty. That's already over fifty percent of a bow's ammo capacity, and bows in my opinion, are quite ammo efficient, one bolt every one and a half or more people. 

 

Anyway, back to my point, you have thirty total grenades, and you average killing ten people. That's three hundred kills without picking up any ammunition as the bow get seventy two, more or less, unless you find a really narrow and straight hallway. 

 

So, looking at it that way, how efficient is the penta, still? Especially if you go into the fact that you pick up ten grenades per sniper clip (from what I'm told, we now pick up sniper clips for rocket ammunition) and you kill ten enemies per grenade... Why would there be a problem? 

 

Just brood on that, bias aside and just think about it logically. 

 

To all of you already logical thinkers, you win a cookie! :D But you must first join the Dark Side. >:3

[The_Traitor_Executioner]

No.  I'm sorry, but no. You should not be railroaded into wasting a slot on an ammo mutation mod or actively scrounging bins and corpses for ammunition.  That breaks the flow.

[thekarubo]

How many people do you kill with a bow, without picking up any ammo? 

 

Just about your ammo capacity, right? At around Seventy-two people. More or less, collateral shots and misses, respectively. 

 

How often do you look for ammo with a bow? Not very, right? Usually, you kill seven enemies, one drops a sniper pack, and you get ten more bolts, and you rarely run out. 

 

Now, you may be thinking, this is common knowledge, huh? 

 

This is where I ask you about the new Penta's ammo capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

How many people do you kill with a Penta? Like, ten plus, right? Everyone seems to complain that you have no ammunition, but, ten multiplied by five is fifty. That's already over fifty percent of a bow's ammo capacity, and bows in my opinion, are quite ammo efficient, one bolt every one and a half or more people. 

 

Anyway, back to my point, you have thirty total grenades, and you average killing ten people. That's three hundred kills without picking up any ammunition as the bow get seventy two, more or less, unless you find a really narrow and straight hallway. 

 

So, looking at it that way, how efficient is the penta, still? Especially if you go into the fact that you pick up ten grenades per sniper clip (from what I'm told, we now pick up sniper clips for rocket ammunition) and you kill ten enemies per grenade... Why would there be a problem? 

 

Just brood on that, bias aside and just think about it logically. 

 

To all of you already logical thinkers, you win a cookie! :D But you must first join the Dark Side. >:3

This is all assuming the enemies are bunched up together extremely tightly, and far more often than not, they aren't. So no, you DON'T kill 10 people per shot. 

[vaugahn]

Logic? On the forums? Nope no way.

[ThePredicament]

I'm definitely not the guy who's gonna argue against the nerf, since I think it's fine on some of the weapons, but 10 kills per pill? That's what, defense at mid levels at most? Agreed that they are fine the way they are in game modes that have infinite spawning enemies but other modes like cap, ext, etc, enemies aren't as clumped up and as numerous. The nerf just wasn't considered in a universal level.

[Imaru]

This is all assuming the enemies are bunched up together extremely tightly, and far more often than not, they aren't. So no, you DON'T kill 10 people per shot. 

This is true, BUT the point of a grenade launcher has never been and never will be to kill a single target unless they are firmly behind cover. You should be using your Penta ammo far more conservatively than the average player probably does and to take out large groups of enemies, effectively guaranteeing return of ammo. 

[Llyssa]

Did you know people fight things that take 3+ penta grenades to kill? Do your fun little math thing again using that metric.

 

EDIT: Also, if you're using a bow and averaging less than 2 targets per arrow, you're doing it wrong.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Llyssa

[(PSN)theelix]

This is all assuming the enemies are bunched up together extremely tightly, and far more often than not, they aren't. So no, you DON'T kill 10 people per shot.

There are many assumptions here that are true in defense and no, they don't have to be bunched together that tightly at all. I kill quite larger than the circumference of say, enemies surrounding a dual cryopod in the middle of four pillars and two stairs...

 

Did you know people fight things that take 3+ penta grenades to kill? Do your fun little math thing again using that metric.

EDIT: Also, if you're using a bow and averaging less than 2 targets per arrow, you're doing it wrong.

This is also assuming you're not doing more than, say, round 70 on defense or fighting a boss, in which most weapons are supposed to not kill instantly. If you're fighting Vay Hek with a penta, obviously not gonna kill him. If you're fighting Vor with a penta, obviously not gonna kill him, if you're fighting Lephantis, obviously not gonna kill him, if you're fighting enemies 500 level and above, probably not going to kill them. There are many things in factor to not take one penta to kill, but I'm assuming sub round 70 ODD enemies.

Edit: If you're using a bow and killing two targets per arrow, Good For You.

 

After thought: If You need more than one Penta to kill something, chances are you're gonna need more than one bolt to kill something, which means you'll need substantially more than most other things to kill something and so on. 3+ Penta's is, most of the time, 4-5+ bolts and hundreds of bullets. So, I think 3+ Penta's is fine. 

I'm definitely not the guy who's gonna argue against the nerf, since I think it's fine on some of the weapons, but 10 kills per pill? That's what, defense at mid levels at most? Agreed that they are fine the way they are in game modes that have infinite spawning enemies but other modes like cap, ext, etc, enemies aren't as clumped up and as numerous. The nerf just wasn't considered in a universal level.

Why are you using a Penta on Extermination? AoE type weapons are inefficient for stuff like that. The Penta's job description is do deal high damage to multiple enemies at one time. Not to kill one person with one grenade.

Why are you using a Penta on Capture missions? That's just... Well, Laziness is the word that comes to mind.

Why would you use a Penta on Sabotage? That's... I don't even know.

Rescue? That, from the hilarious realism stand point, is kinda irony. Kinda. You're bringing the things that shoots a grenade to kill everything anywhere near a person who has the survivability of a potato? Why?

Edited August 14, 2014 by (PS4)theelix
Merged posts for space purposes.

[Rakshal]

Holy crap, you don't even have the update yet you fully understand that this nerf is a good thing!

[Pisirk]

No.  I'm sorry, but no.  Your logic is not valid.  You should not be railroaded into wasting a slot on an ammo mutation mod or actively scrounging bins and corpses for ammunition.  That breaks the flow.

Tell that to my amprex. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA how many times I run out of ammo???????? BUT NOOOO I'm not complaining am I ???

Edited August 14, 2014 by Pisirk

[(PSN)theelix]

Holy crap, you don't even have the update yet you fully understand that this nerf is a good thing!

I kinda wish they reversed the update and put it for bows. 

 

Five hundred and Forty bolts? Omg, I'm drooling. 

[DarkLordX2]

But you must first join the Dark Side. >:3

Nope, unless you give me platinum and a black suit.

[(PSN)theelix]

How many people do you kill with a bow, without picking up any ammo? 

 

Just about your ammo capacity, right? At around Seventy-two people. More or less, collateral shots and misses, respectively. 

 

How often do you look for ammo with a bow? Not very, right? Usually, you kill seven enemies, one drops a sniper pack, and you get ten more bolts, and you rarely run out. 

 

Now, you may be thinking, this is common knowledge, huh? 

 

This is where I ask you about the new Penta's ammo capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

How many people do you kill with a Penta? Like, ten plus, right? Everyone seems to complain that you have no ammunition, but, ten multiplied by five is fifty. That's already over fifty percent of a bow's ammo capacity, and bows in my opinion, are quite ammo efficient, one bolt every one and a half or more people. 

 

Anyway, back to my point, you have thirty total grenades, and you average killing ten people. That's three hundred kills without picking up any ammunition as the bow get seventy two, more or less, unless you find a really narrow and straight hallway. 

 

So, looking at it that way, how efficient is the penta, still? Especially if you go into the fact that you pick up ten grenades per sniper clip (from what I'm told, we now pick up sniper clips for rocket ammunition) and you kill ten enemies per grenade... Why would there be a problem? 

 

Just brood on that, bias aside and just think about it logically. 

 

To all of you already logical thinkers, you win a cookie! :D But you must first join the Dark Side. >:3

I'll be my own Devil's advocate and repeat what someone said, you only kill, say 3 people with one grenade. That's ninety. That's more than the bow's ammo capacity. Let's say you kill only two people. That's sixty, that's pretty close. If you only kill one, and it's not a boss or really high leveled eximus or something, you're doing it wrong. If it's something you don't expect to kill in one grenade, you're doing it wrong.

[IIPREDATORII]

We all know the real reason most are ticked off about the ammo change.

They now have to work like the rest of us to maintain ammo, and they can't just sit on a box being god like anymore.

Seen this coming since their release. Didn't bother wasting my time building it, or WASTING FORMA (hahaha) on it.

Serves you right for not thinking 500+ ammo was a mistake in the first place.

[Yazeth]

I found the nerf to be fine. Explosives are mainly used for crowds, so you should be maintaining your ammo a lot more now, instead of just lobbing grenades for 1-2 kills. Also, if you don't wanna waste ammo, you can always bring a good Secondary that specializes in killing a single enemy quickly, like Marelok or Brakk.

[Cyber-Dust]

How many people do you kill with a bow, without picking up any ammo? 

 

Just about your ammo capacity, right? At around Seventy-two people. More or less, collateral shots and misses, respectively. 

 

How often do you look for ammo with a bow? Not very, right? Usually, you kill seven enemies, one drops a sniper pack, and you get ten more bolts, and you rarely run out. 

 

Now, you may be thinking, this is common knowledge, huh? 

 

This is where I ask you about the new Penta's ammo capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

How many people do you kill with a Penta? Like, ten plus, right? Everyone seems to complain that you have no ammunition, but, ten multiplied by five is fifty. That's already over fifty percent of a bow's ammo capacity, and bows in my opinion, are quite ammo efficient, one bolt every one and a half or more people. 

 

Anyway, back to my point, you have thirty total grenades, and you average killing ten people. That's three hundred kills without picking up any ammunition as the bow get seventy two, more or less, unless you find a really narrow and straight hallway. 

 

So, looking at it that way, how efficient is the penta, still? Especially if you go into the fact that you pick up ten grenades per sniper clip (from what I'm told, we now pick up sniper clips for rocket ammunition) and you kill ten enemies per grenade... Why would there be a problem? 

 

Just brood on that, bias aside and just think about it logically. 

 

To all of you already logical thinkers, you win a cookie! :D But you must first join the Dark Side. >:3

And then you carry an Angstrom for CC and the ammopool bugs and you now have 30 max ammo on both weapons, flailing around trying to catch a break in a swarm of enemy firing the Angstrom in panic and now you have no Ammo... at all...

This new ammo pool bug saddens me deeply. RIP Paris Prime/Angstrom build.

[Arabaxus]

There are many assumptions here that are true in defense and no, they don't have to be bunched together that tightly at all. I kill quite larger than the circumference of say, enemies surrounding a dual cryopod in the middle of four pillars and two stairs...

 

This is also assuming you're not doing more than, say, round 70 on defense or fighting a boss, in which most weapons are supposed to not kill instantly. If you're fighting Vay Hek with a penta, obviously not gonna kill him. If you're fighting Vor with a penta, obviously not gonna kill him, if you're fighting Lephantis, obviously not gonna kill him, if you're fighting enemies 500 level and above, probably not going to kill them. There are many things in factor to not take one penta to kill, but I'm assuming sub round 70 ODD enemies.

Edit: If you're using a bow and killing two targets per arrow, Good For You.

 

Why are you using a Penta on Extermination? AoE type weapons are inefficient for stuff like that. The Penta's job description is do deal high damage to multiple enemies at one time. Not to kill one person with one grenade.

Why are you using a Penta on Capture missions? That's just... Well, Laziness is the word that comes to mind.

Why would you use a Penta on Sabotage? That's... I don't even know.

Rescue? That, from the hilarious realism stand point, is kinda irony. Kinda. You're bringing the things that shoots a grenade to kill everything anywhere near a person who has the survivability of a potato? Why?

 

I have a six Forma Penta, and on Wave 9 of Sechura, if two Healing Ancients are present, they can easily both tank out 2 or 3 of my Penta grenades. Mind you these are the same ones that supposedly deal 15k damage per, but only hit for about 1.5k on the Ancients and the little buggers surrounding them.

 

Plus, you know, enemies don't always conveniently stand together in clusters for you to blow up. This only consistently happens in hallways, certain tiles, defense, and survival.

 

Regarding your whole "why are you using a Penta on X or Y mission", things are in the game. We should be able to use them. The same excuses about weapon diversity "hurr durr everyone is using a Boltor Prime it's clearly OP" stems from the same group that may make your argument, "Why are you using a weapon that's 'not meant' for said mission type"? Pretty clear double standards again here, alongside the massive amount of hypocrisy that likes to grow from this rowdy bunch. On one hand they complain something is OP simply because many people use it, and that it is supposedly the best and therefore overpowered (when it's not, and even if it were, its still not even overpowered), but on the other hand, they will tell you that you shouldn't use X or Y for some specific mission type. 

 

And please, don't try to make some pointless analogy with Warframe and real life or some other game. Those discussions never get anywhere. It's literally the same as comparing apples and oranges. If you really want to argue about realism, when did we have Space Corporation businessmen with rectangular helmets in spaceships with laser rifles and shock prods?

 

 

I found the nerf to be fine. Explosives are mainly used for crowds, so you should be maintaining your ammo a lot more now, instead of just lobbing grenades for 1-2 kills. Also, if you don't wanna waste ammo, you can always bring a good Secondary that specializes in killing a single enemy quickly, like Marelok or Brakk.

 

 

This is one really odd argument I don't understand how people think is even logical to claim. Just because explosive primaries (mind you they are primaries just like Rifles and Bows and Shotguns in this game) have AoEs, means that we should gimp their ammunition capacity to the point where ammo economy is such an issue that we are railroaded into using Sniper Scavenger/Sniper Ammo Mutation? Meanwhile, We can sit perfectly fine with our automatics and semis, Somas, Boltor Primes, Latron Primes, Paris Primes, all that fodder, suffer no ammunition issues, have greater burst and sustained damage output, can score consistent headshots to take advantage of the multipliers, have actual critical and status percentages, and can focus and pin down heavy units, such as Heavy Gunners, without having to suffer the negatives from Ferrite Armor, all because they have a paltry AoE? At least with a reasonable ammunition capacity, not 540, but also not 20, we can argue that they have the same longevity as the other primaries as a weapon focused solely on eliminating the smaller, weaker mobs, but as they stand, your standard, cookie-cutter everyday rifles are in a much better position than your launchers. If the idea was to nerf the launchers into obscurity so they later become as unused and uncommonly seen as something like the Dera or Tysis, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Arabaxus

[SpadedTail]

 

 

This is one really odd argument I don't understand how people think is even logical to claim. Just because explosive primaries (mind you they are primaries just like Rifles and Bows and Shotguns in this game) have AoEs, means that we should gimp their ammunition capacity to the point where ammo economy is such an issue that we are railroaded into using Sniper Scavenger/Sniper Ammo Mutation? Meanwhile, We can sit perfectly fine with our automatics and semis, Somas, Boltor Primes, Latron Primes, Paris Primes, all that fodder, suffer no ammunition issues, have greater burst and sustained damage output, can score consistent headshots to take advantage of the multipliers, have actual critical and status percentages, and can focus and pin down heavy units, such as Heavy Gunners, without having to suffer the negatives from Ferrite Armor, all because they have a paltry AoE? At least with a reasonable ammunition capacity, not 540, but also not 20, we can argue that they have the same longevity as the other primaries as a weapon focused solely on eliminating the smaller, weaker mobs, but as they stand, your standard, cookie-cutter everyday rifles are in a much better position than your launchers. If the idea was to nerf the launchers into obscurity so they later become as unused and uncommonly seen as something like the Dera or Tysis, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

 

 

Nobody is being railroaded anywhere. It's just that every weapon has to have a flaw. The Amprex has ludicrous damage, but has extreme ammo consumption and low range. The Latron is very ammo efficient and has good range, but it's not AoE and this is a zerg-based game. The Supra has decent AoE and decent damage, but the ammo consumption is through the roof too. Except that before, the Penta and Ogris had absolutely no flaws. If your primary wasn't a Penta or Ogris, you were simply purposefully underpowering yourself because while your pretty little Latron is shooting ancients, your buddy's Penta is shooting half of the room at the same time. It doesn't matter how fast you click, you will never kill a group as fast as someone with an AoE weapon and this is a game where the enemies will always come in enormous packs. The developers had to introduce a flaw to the launchers, and they did so without hurting their damage. Standard, cookie-cutter rifles are more ammo efficient but are not as efficient as launchers for cleaning an entire room. See how weapons have good sides and bad sides? That's why it's called balancing.

 

Now, when modding a weapon, you can cover it's flaws or focus completely in damage. Using the Amprex as example, you can make a full crit/damage/elemental build that will destroy everything in it's path but run out of ammo quickly, or you can bring a max ammo/mutation mod to make it more efficient. You'll deal less damage, but you'll use it more often. It's a fair trade, and encourages build variety. Similarly, with the Ogris and Penta, you can go full damage (as before) or you can adapt and try to be more ammo efficient. You're not being railroaded - your weapon now just has a flaw, and you have to pick if you'll either fix that flaw, or keep it's high damage and have to endure not always using it. Again, it's a fair trade.

 

Expecting your overpowered room-destroyer to be as ammo efficient as my single-target rifle is ludicrous. 

[Arabaxus]

Nobody is being railroaded anywhere. It's just that every weapon has to have a flaw. The Amprex has ludicrous damage, but has extreme ammo consumption and low range. The Latron is very ammo efficient and has good range, but it's not AoE and this is a zerg-based game. The Supra has decent AoE and decent damage, but the ammo consumption is through the roof too. Except that before, the Penta and Ogris had absolutely no flaws. If your primary wasn't a Penta or Ogris, you were simply purposefully underpowering yourself because while your pretty little Latron is shooting ancients, your buddy's Penta is shooting half of the room at the same time. It doesn't matter how fast you click, you will never kill a group as fast as someone with an AoE weapon and this is a game where the enemies will always come in enormous packs. The developers had to introduce a flaw to the launchers, and they did so without hurting their damage. Standard, cookie-cutter rifles are more ammo efficient but are not as efficient as launchers for cleaning an entire room. See how weapons have good sides and bad sides? That's why it's called balancing.

 

Now, when modding a weapon, you can cover it's flaws or focus completely in damage. Using the Amprex as example, you can make a full crit/damage/elemental build that will destroy everything in it's path but run out of ammo quickly, or you can bring a max ammo/mutation mod to make it more efficient. You'll deal less damage, but you'll use it more often. It's a fair trade, and encourages build variety. Similarly, with the Ogris and Penta, you can go full damage (as before) or you can adapt and try to be more ammo efficient. You're not being railroaded - your weapon now just has a flaw, and you have to pick if you'll either fix that flaw, or keep it's high damage and have to endure not always using it. Again, it's a fair trade.

 

Expecting your overpowered room-destroyer to be as ammo efficient as my single-target rifle is ludicrous. 

 

Even with ammo economy not an issue, pre-nerf Launchers already sacrificed two things compared to your single-target rifles. One of which should be blatantly obvious to the players who promote that Boltor Prime is overpowered because it has the greatest DPS. And that is exactly it. Again, with a reasonable ammo capacity, 50-70 or so, Launchers would only be ammo efficient assuming enemies stood together. As their beloved DPS tables clearly show, Launchers have paltry DPS compared to their rifle counterparts, which should be expected because of their AoE nature. They also have minimal to zero Status or Critical chances, because of their AoE nature. Launchers are also paltry against Heavy Gunners and Ancient Healers, including the infested they buff, due to their AoE nature. I'm not saying 540 rounds is justified. I'm saying 20 rounds is unreasonable. However, these are legitimate tradeoffs for AoE, we are already trading at a minimum 2, (I'll assume blast damage and ammo efficiency are opinionated, and not count them), factors for AoE, Status/Crits (including headshot capabilities), and DPS on single targets.

 

So yes, they were already trade-offs in place. They were just conveniently neglected by proponents of the nerf to be mentioned in discussions.

 

Don't just take my word for it, take the word of the DPS tables and calculators players seem to blindly follow much of time. Here's Penta as an example:

 

 

Six Forma, maximized damage mods and barely over 10k sustained DPS. 

 

Other "good" weapons, as the community loves to divide weapons by, can easily achieve much higher DPS than that, with the use of less Formas, and still retain usable levels of Critical hits, Status Procs, accuracy, and fast projectile speed at the trade-off of not having AoE. Want the ability to kill multiple enemies at once? Put on a Punch-Through mod, and volia, you can do that too as the cost of some elemental damage, which is likely the mod you would exchange for said Punch-Through mod.

 

And tell me, what are the trade-offs of a weapon, say Boltor Prime? The fact it doesn't have an AoE? A bullet travel time near insignificant? How about Latron Prime? The decency to aim for Headshots to capitalize on its strengths? How about Dread or Paris Prime? Having to spend one second charging up each shot and aiming for the head in exchange for dealing about as much damage on one target as 5 or 6 Penta grenades or 3-5 Ogris Rockets?

 

Seems to me some of these things are tradeoffs in, for lack of a better word, skill, rather than something we are forced to use a bandage mod for.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Arabaxus

[Sev7n]

Nobody is being railroaded anywhere. It's just that every weapon has to have a flaw. The Amprex has ludicrous damage, but has extreme ammo consumption and low range. The Latron is very ammo efficient and has good range, but it's not AoE and this is a zerg-based game. The Supra has decent AoE and decent damage, but the ammo consumption is through the roof too. Except that before, the Penta and Ogris had absolutely no flaws. If your primary wasn't a Penta or Ogris, you were simply purposefully underpowering yourself because while your pretty little Latron is shooting ancients, your buddy's Penta is shooting half of the room at the same time. It doesn't matter how fast you click, you will never kill a group as fast as someone with an AoE weapon and this is a game where the enemies will always come in enormous packs. The developers had to introduce a flaw to the launchers, and they did so without hurting their damage. Standard, cookie-cutter rifles are more ammo efficient but are not as efficient as launchers for cleaning an entire room. See how weapons have good sides and bad sides? That's why it's called balancing.

 

Now, when modding a weapon, you can cover it's flaws or focus completely in damage. Using the Amprex as example, you can make a full crit/damage/elemental build that will destroy everything in it's path but run out of ammo quickly, or you can bring a max ammo/mutation mod to make it more efficient. You'll deal less damage, but you'll use it more often. It's a fair trade, and encourages build variety. Similarly, with the Ogris and Penta, you can go full damage (as before) or you can adapt and try to be more ammo efficient. You're not being railroaded - your weapon now just has a flaw, and you have to pick if you'll either fix that flaw, or keep it's high damage and have to endure not always using it. Again, it's a fair trade.

 

Expecting your overpowered room-destroyer to be as ammo efficient as my single-target rifle is ludicrous. 

Well said

Another +1

[AlphaHorseman]

Even with ammo economy not an issue, pre-nerf Launchers already sacrificed two things compared to your single-target rifles. One of which should be blatantly obvious to the players who promote that Boltor Prime is overpowered because it has the greatest DPS. And that is exactly it. Again, with a reasonable ammo capacity, 50-70 or so, Launchers would only be ammo efficient assuming enemies stood together. As their beloved DPS tables clearly show, Launchers have paltry DPS compared to their rifle counterparts, which should be expected because of their AoE nature. They also have minimal to zero Status or Critical chances, because of their AoE nature. Launchers are also paltry against Heavy Gunners and Ancient Healers, including the infested they buff, due to their AoE nature. I'm not saying 540 rounds is justified. I'm saying 20 rounds is unreasonable. However, these are legitimate tradeoffs for AoE, we are already trading at a minimum 2, (I'll assume blast damage and ammo efficiency are opinionated, and not count them), factors for AoE, Status/Crits (including headshot capabilities), and DPS on single targets.

 

So yes, they were already trade-offs in place. They were just conveniently neglected by proponents of the nerf to be mentioned in discussions.

 

Don't just take my word for it, take the word of the DPS tables and calculators players seem to blindly follow much of time. Here's Penta as an example:

 

 

Six Forma, maximized damage mods and barely over 10k sustained DPS. 

 

Other "good" weapons, as the community loves to divide weapons by, can easily achieve much higher DPS than that, with the use of less Formas, and still retain usable levels of Critical hits, Status Procs, accuracy, and fast projectile speed at the trade-off of not having AoE. Want the ability to kill multiple enemies at once? Put on a Punch-Through mod, and volia, you can do that too as the cost of some elemental damage, which is likely the mod you would exchange for said Punch-Through mod.

You, my good sir, understand where we're coming from. Very well said.

 

A +1 from me

[insaninater]

How many people do you kill with a bow, without picking up any ammo? 

 

Just about your ammo capacity, right? At around Seventy-two people. More or less, collateral shots and misses, respectively. 

 

How often do you look for ammo with a bow? Not very, right? Usually, you kill seven enemies, one drops a sniper pack, and you get ten more bolts, and you rarely run out. 

 

Now, you may be thinking, this is common knowledge, huh? 

 

This is where I ask you about the new Penta's ammo capacity.

 

 

 

 

 

How many people do you kill with a Penta? Like, ten plus, right? Everyone seems to complain that you have no ammunition, but, ten multiplied by five is fifty. That's already over fifty percent of a bow's ammo capacity, and bows in my opinion, are quite ammo efficient, one bolt every one and a half or more people. 

 

Anyway, back to my point, you have thirty total grenades, and you average killing ten people. That's three hundred kills without picking up any ammunition as the bow get seventy two, more or less, unless you find a really narrow and straight hallway. 

 

So, looking at it that way, how efficient is the penta, still? Especially if you go into the fact that you pick up ten grenades per sniper clip (from what I'm told, we now pick up sniper clips for rocket ammunition) and you kill ten enemies per grenade... Why would there be a problem? 

 

Just brood on that, bias aside and just think about it logically. 

 

To all of you already logical thinkers, you win a cookie! :D But you must first join the Dark Side. >:3

 

So what you're saying is the devs are going to nerf bow ammo capacity too?

 

Wouldn't surprise me, all they know how to do lately is ruin good gear.

[(PSN)theelix]

So what you're saying is the devs are going to nerf bow ammo capacity too?

 

Wouldn't surprise me, all they know how to do lately is ruin good gear.

They won't do that. Mainly because bows take quite a bit of skill to use if you're not five feet from the person. 

[insaninater]

They won't do that. Mainly because bows take quite a bit of skill to use if you're not five feet from the person. 

 

Bows will become meta as soon as rifles get nerfed, then everyone will be kinda forced to use bows because they're useful for stuff compared to other gear.

 

Once they're useful compared to other gear, everyone will cry out for them to be nerfed, and the devs will be quick to respond. That's how this game works now.

Edited August 14, 2014 by insaninater

[(PSN)theelix]

Did you know people fight things that take 3+ penta grenades to kill? Do your fun little math thing again using that metric.

 

EDIT: Also, if you're using a bow and averaging less than 2 targets per arrow, you're doing it wrong.

 

I have a six Forma Penta, and on Wave 9 of Sechura, if two Healing Ancients are present, they can easily both tank out 2 or 3 of my Penta grenades. Mind you these are the same ones that supposedly deal 15k damage per, but only hit for about 1.5k on the Ancients and the little buggers surrounding them.

 

Plus, you know, enemies don't always conveniently stand together in clusters for you to blow up. This only consistently happens in hallways, certain tiles, defense, and survival.

 

Regarding your whole "why are you using a Penta on X or Y mission", things are in the game. We should be able to use them. The same excuses about weapon diversity "hurr durr everyone is using a Boltor Prime it's clearly OP" stems from the same group that may make your argument, "Why are you using a weapon that's 'not meant' for said mission type"? Pretty clear double standards again here, alongside the massive amount of hypocrisy that likes to grow from this rowdy bunch. On one hand they complain something is OP simply because many people use it, and that it is supposedly the best and therefore overpowered (when it's not, and even if it were, its still not even overpowered), but on the other hand, they will tell you that you shouldn't use X or Y for some specific mission type. 

 

And please, don't try to make some pointless analogy with Warframe and real life or some other game. Those discussions never get anywhere. It's literally the same as comparing apples and oranges. If you really want to argue about realism, when did we have Space Corporation businessmen with rectangular helmets in spaceships with laser rifles and shock prods?

 

 

 

 

This is one really odd argument I don't understand how people think is even logical to claim. Just because explosive primaries (mind you they are primaries just like Rifles and Bows and Shotguns in this game) have AoEs, means that we should gimp their ammunition capacity to the point where ammo economy is such an issue that we are railroaded into using Sniper Scavenger/Sniper Ammo Mutation? Meanwhile, We can sit perfectly fine with our automatics and semis, Somas, Boltor Primes, Latron Primes, Paris Primes, all that fodder, suffer no ammunition issues, have greater burst and sustained damage output, can score consistent headshots to take advantage of the multipliers, have actual critical and status percentages, and can focus and pin down heavy units, such as Heavy Gunners, without having to suffer the negatives from Ferrite Armor, all because they have a paltry AoE? At least with a reasonable ammunition capacity, not 540, but also not 20, we can argue that they have the same longevity as the other primaries as a weapon focused solely on eliminating the smaller, weaker mobs, but as they stand, your standard, cookie-cutter everyday rifles are in a much better position than your launchers. If the idea was to nerf the launchers into obscurity so they later become as unused and uncommonly seen as something like the Dera or Tysis, then congratulations, you have succeeded.

 

I said the whole realism thing as comedy. I'm not trying to actually put realism in the game. It doesn't fit. I'm just saying you're bringing a bazooka to kill few flies that are on top of a precious vase.