Ammo Nerf Protest

[Arabaxus]

After seeing the newly buffed attica using a thunderbolt mod, and the reactions to all the people who were wanting the Rocket launcher to be nerfed and are still defending the severity of it but defending how broken the attica is now, I must WHOLEHARTEDLY disagree with all of you now...

 

To be fair the Attica with Thunderbolt doesn't deal nearly as much damage or the AoE size of a dedicated launcher.

 

 

This is also an excellent point. Many players are attempting to argue that launchers should be viewed as auxiliary weapons. This makes no sense. Launchers should be allowed to stand on their own as primary systems. The reason you carry melee, and a secondary is so that you can diversify your equipped damage types, not so that you can compensate for an overly specialized weapon serving as your primary.

 

+1

 

Players may argue that in DOOM or Call of Duty or Battlefield or whatnot that launchers have minimal ammunition sizes. However, they never mention that:

 

In DOOM, you can pick up weapons off the ground and carry multiple weapons.

 

In Call of Duty, launchers are specified as Secondary Weapons.

 

In Battlefield, launchers and other ordinance are specified as class specific tertiary weapons.

 

In Titanfall, launchers are specified as tertiary weapons as well.

 

Now, I haven't played Halo, so I cannot speak for that. But from the videos I have seen on Halo, again, weapons are readily picked up off the ground. 

 

I don't believe in making these comparisons in the first place to Warframe, but since so many people use this as justification, I must also state the facts so readers are not deluded by lies through omission.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Arabaxus

[R3DBelmont456]

To be fair the Attica with Thunderbolt doesn't deal nearly as much damage or the AoE size of a dedicated launcher.

 

 

 

+1

 

Players may argue that in DOOM or Call of Duty or Battlefield or whatnot that launchers have minimal ammunition sizes. However, they never mention that:

 

In DOOM, you can pick up weapons off the ground and carry multiple weapons.

 

In Call of Duty, launchers are specified as Secondary Weapons.

 

In Battlefield, launchers and other ordinance are specified as class specific tertiary weapons.

 

In Titanfall, launchers are specified as tertiary weapons as well.

 

Now, I haven't played Halo, so I cannot speak for that. But from the videos I have seen on Halo, again, weapons are readily picked up off the ground. 

 

I don't believe in making these comparisons in the first place to Warframe, but since so many people use this as justification, I must also state the facts so readers are not deluded by lies through omission.

IN DOOM you have 50 rockets without a backpack, and 100 with... and additively, thunderbolt really makes a difference... not to mention that using a mirage turns it into a better angstrum... that uses rifle ammo instead of sniper ammo... My blood is boiling so much now, that I cannot even look straight anymore...

[vaugahn]

Players may argue that in DOOM or Call of Duty or Battlefield or whatnot that launchers have minimal ammunition sizes. However, they never mention that:

 

In DOOM, you can pick up weapons off the ground and carry multiple weapons.

 

In Call of Duty, launchers are specified as Secondary Weapons.

 

In Battlefield, launchers and other ordinance are specified as class specific tertiary weapons.

 

In Titanfall, launchers are specified as tertiary weapons as well.

 

Now, I haven't played Halo, so I cannot speak for that. But from the videos I have seen on Halo, again, weapons are readily picked up off the ground. 

 

I don't believe in making these comparisons in the first place to Warframe, but since so many people use this as justification, I must also state the facts so readers are not deluded by lies through omission.

 

In all of those games ammo is more difficult to come by than in Warframe.

 

I've never liked our ammo system. Ammo pools should be infinite. However, in the presence of an ammo system limiting available shots for the strongest weapons does make sense. Some tweaking is required for them to be viable as a main weapon though. (my personal opinions on launchers being used as a main weapon in modes other than defense aside)

[R3DBelmont456]

In all of those games ammo is more difficult to come by than in Warframe.

 

I've never liked our ammo system. Ammo pools should be infinite. However, in the presence of an ammo system limiting available shots for the strongest weapons does make sense. Some tweaking is required for them to be viable as a main weapon though. (my personal opinions on launchers being used as a main weapon in modes other than defense aside)

you've obviously never played mayhem maps or even Go 2 it, which literally gives you infinite ammo for the BFG having 1000s of cell packs lying around, so that you would be able to deal with the Legions of OP demons you have to kill in just one area all shooting homing fireballs and rockets at you...

Edited August 15, 2014 by R3DBelmont456

[Agullimux]

Silly question. Why explosives now use sniper ammo, but why we use rifle am (penta) or pistol (angstrum) ammo mutation? Even with maxed ammo mutation i get only one ammo/ box.

Edited August 15, 2014 by Agullimux

[R3DBelmont456]

Silly question. Why explosives now use sniper ammo, but why we use rifle am (penta) or pistol (angstrum) ammo mutation? Even with maxed ammo mutation i get only one ammo/ box.

they Overnerfed em... just sayin...

[Arabaxus]

Another thing I would like to address is player response to launchers.

 

Now, for this explanation, I will use the example of the Call of Duty community. Different game, different issue, but similar community trend.

 

For those not as familiar, there is a particular play-style in Call of Duty known as "camping", or staying in one sheltered position rather than remaining mobile. It is looked upon as a strategy for "scrubs and noobs" among the vocal portion of the community, easily seen through the Youtube community, and to some extent, the Major League Gaming community.

 

I do not like camping. Neither does this vocal community. We complain about it, we complain about explosive ordinances that can be laid down and forgotten, and later used to protect these "camping positions". 

 

However, the developers understood, as I do now, that camping is a gameplay choice, and everyone has the choice to do so or not based on personal preference, and personal preferences of one group should forcibly not hamper the experience of another. Therefore, explosive ordinances such as Bouncing Betties, Claymores, etc. persist to this day in those games. They also realized early on that the complaints of me, and the anti-camping community were us voicing our opinions, but leaving it as is would not have much effect on the playerbase. As much as we did not like campers, we continued to play the game, because it was for the most part, enjoyable for us. We could choose to "rush" as we so desired, and they could choose to "camp". 

Besides the fact, I soon understood that these campers we labeled as "scrubs" were perhaps more intelligent than the rest of us. Some of them may have realized their gunplay was not up to par with others, or their reaction time or reflexes were not their strong suits. Instead of whining about how the game was all about reflexes and how whoever got the first shot in usually won the gun-fight (which believe me, in many cases this is true), they found some way to compensate for these issues by themselves, and this solution came in the form of "camping".

 

Now, Call of Duty is in no way the perfectly balanced game. If it were, there would not have to be specific E-Sports/MLG rulesets that blacklist the use of specific weapons and equipment. Even then, on the professional level, there are usually one or two weapons per specific sub-class that are considered the "best". Even though Call of Duty is PvP based, where balance is easily argued as much more important than in a PvE centric game, it is not without its flaws.

 

However, their sixth installation, Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2 was, and still is to this day, infamous for the ridiculous imbalance in the game.

 

A pump action shotgun could kill you in one burst even at ranges as extreme as 15-20m. Automatic shotguns with magazine sizes comparable to those of an assault rifle existed. Shotguns with enough burst potential in pellets to kill 5.6 entire players (that is, unloading the magazine dealt a potential of 560 damage in under a second when a player has 100 health). Weapons as powerful as these were also secondaries.

 

A single perk, Danger Close, made grenades and other explosive ordinance have a kill radius of a "nuke". Your foot could be barely within the radius and it would still result in death. Underslung Grenade Launchers could have unlimited ammunition with the use of a perk and a secondary slot (mind you this is in PvP). 

 

However, if you ask many players who have followed this game for a long time which installment was the most "fun", they would likely point to Modern Warfare 2. These are also the same players who complained about camping and the imbalance of this particular installment. If you ask which game was the most "fair", they would likely point to the 4th installment, Modern Warfare 1.

 

Long story short; personal preferences of one part of the community should not force changes that hamper the preferences of other parts of the community, even if that part is the one where most of the "veterans" conglomerate, and in Call of Duty's case, where the actual Professional Players also gather. And sometimes, imbalance may be imbalance, but it is a sacrifice well worth making when if "balance" changes are made, the game is no longer as fun.

[R3DBelmont456]

Another thing I would like to address is player response to launchers.

 

Now, for this explanation, I will use the example of the Call of Duty community. Different game, different issue, but similar community trend.

 

For those not as familiar, there is a particular play-style in Call of Duty known as "camping", or staying in one sheltered position rather than remaining mobile. It is looked upon as a strategy for "scrubs and noobs" among the vocal portion of the community, easily seen through the Youtube community, and to some extent, the Major League Gaming community.

 

I do not like camping. Neither does this vocal community. We complain about it, we complain about explosive ordinances that can be laid down and forgotten, and later used to protect these "camping positions". 

 

However, the developers understood, as I do now, that camping is a gameplay choice, and everyone has the choice to do so or not based on personal preference, and personal preferences of one group should forcibly not hamper the experience of another. Therefore, explosive ordinances such as Bouncing Betties, Claymores, etc. persist to this day in those games. They also realized early on that the complaints of me, and the anti-camping community were us voicing our opinions, but leaving it as is would not have much effect on the playerbase. As much as we did not like campers, we continued to play the game, because it was for the most part, enjoyable for us. We could choose to "rush" as we so desired, and they could choose to "camp". 

Besides the fact, I soon understood that these campers we labeled as "scrubs" were perhaps more intelligent than the rest of us. Some of them may have realized their gunplay was not up to par with others, or their reaction time or reflexes were not their strong suits. Instead of whining about how the game was all about reflexes and how whoever got the first shot in usually won the gun-fight (which believe me, in many cases this is true), they found some way to compensate for these issues by themselves, and this solution came in the form of "camping".

 

Now, Call of Duty is in no way the perfectly balanced game. If it were, there would not have to be specific E-Sports/MLG rulesets that blacklist the use of specific weapons and equipment. Even then, on the professional level, there are usually one or two weapons per specific sub-class that are considered the "best". Even though Call of Duty is PvP based, where balance is easily argued as much more important than in a PvE centric game, it is not without its flaws.

 

However, their sixth installation, Call of Duty - Modern Warfare 2 was, and still is to this day, infamous for the ridiculous imbalance in the game.

 

A pump action shotgun could kill you in one burst even at ranges as extreme as 15-20m. Automatic shotguns with magazine sizes comparable to those of an assault rifle existed. Shotguns with enough burst potential in pellets to kill 5.6 entire players (that is, unloading the magazine dealt a potential of 560 damage in under a second when a player has 100 health). Weapons as powerful as these were also secondaries.

 

A single perk, Danger Close, made grenades and other explosive ordinance have a kill radius of a "nuke". Your foot could be barely within the radius and it would still result in death. Underslung Grenade Launchers could have unlimited ammunition with the use of a perk and a secondary slot (mind you this is in PvP). 

 

However, if you ask many players who have followed this game for a long time which installment was the most "fun", they would likely point to Modern Warfare 2. These are also the same players who complained about camping and the imbalance of this particular installment. If you ask which game was the most "fair", they would likely point to the 4th installment, Modern Warfare 1.

 

Long story short; personal preferences of one part of the community should not force changes that hamper the preferences of other parts of the community, even if that part is the one where most of the "veterans" conglomerate, and in Call of Duty's case, where the actual Professional Players also gather. And sometimes, imbalance may be imbalance, but it is a sacrifice well worth making when if "balance" changes are made, the game is no longer as fun.

Agree 100%, and TBH, even if I don't use launchers anymore, my strategy in defense missions HAS not changed one bit, wether I use a SOMA, a Bow, a sniper or the Flux rifle... I just stay perched somewhere safe just picking enemies off easy peasy... only shows you that this nerf was not needed to be overdone to such a Ludicrous degree... Because you don't see players with brains in defense go down every 5 seconds to pick ammo up when they run out of it when they're using a machinegun or w/e else... in fact, the only people I ever see down below in defense missions are those that spam the Melee button...

Edited August 15, 2014 by R3DBelmont456

[vaugahn]

Long story short; personal preferences of one part of the community should not force changes that hamper the preferences of other parts of the community, even if that part is the one where most of the "veterans" conglomerate, and in Call of Duty's case, where the actual Professional Players also gather. And sometimes, imbalance may be imbalance, but it is a sacrifice well worth making when if "balance" changes are made, the game is no longer as fun.

 

MW2 is a good example of fun imbalance, you are correct. However, that doesn't mean all imbalance is fun. I think we can all agree 540 rockets was not good imbalance, just a lazy usage of the ammo system that led to easy-moding on defense tiles. We can also agree that there should be a risk-reward aspect in taking a launcher.

 

I agree that 40 rounds would be better. What I'm mainly arguing against here are people who are like "launchers have small ammo pools, lol no longer viable"

[R3DBelmont456]

MW2 is a good example of fun imbalance, you are correct. However, that doesn't mean all imbalance is fun. I think we can all agree 540 rockets was not good imbalance, just a lazy usage of the ammo system that led to easy-moding on defense tiles. We can also agree that there should be a risk-reward aspect in taking a launcher.

 

I agree that 40 rounds would be better. What I'm mainly arguing against here are people who are like "launchers have small ammo pools, lol no longer viable"

Then let's all agree to disagree to agree that all rockets need 40 ammo and the angstrum need 60, also I'm not sure you've ever heard of the Term Perfect Imbalance, but it does exist, and it's the reason games like League of Legends and Starcraft Brood War are still played competitively in Korea today...

[Flackenstien]

Oh no! I have a reason to use melee, my secondary, and non-damage mods! Woe is me!~

Edited August 16, 2014 by Flackenstien

[R3DBelmont456]

Oh no! I have a reason to use melee, my secondary, and non-damage mods! Woe is me!~

real productive bro... and while you're at it why don't you go check out the attica with it's new buffs... AKA the "infinite" Grenade Launcher.... PS AKA, the BFG 10K

[Dasmir]

real productive bro... and while you're at it why don't you go check out the attica with it's new buffs... AKA the "infinite" Grenade Launcher.... PS AKA, the BFG 10K

 

you are going to complain about a 250 fixed damage mod ? wow that explosive user butthurt.

[MirageKnight]

real productive bro... and while you're at it why don't you go check out the attica with it's new buffs... AKA the "infinite" Grenade Launcher.... PS AKA, the BFG 10K

 

No offense, but last I checked the Thunderbolt mod gives each bolt fired a 30% chance of doing 250 Blast damage on impact AT MOST. 

[R3DBelmont456]

yes, but you both forget a very important detail... if it procs 8 out of 16 times, then the total dmg is 2000 blast dmg additively, but if it procs 16X which can happen btw, cause low chance procs and crits can still happen pretty frequently, then the dmg is 4000 AoE blast dmg per clip, and it has 540 rounds, is fully automatic, is almost hitscan from it's projectile speed, and used with a Mirage, it's pretty much a replacement for the Angstrum hands down... oh did I forget to mention it uses rifle ammo?... need I show you a video showing you how broken it is now?...

Edited August 16, 2014 by R3DBelmont456

[(PSN)MonkeysBeLike]

A protest because you dont have 500+ ammo for your penta or 100+ for your ogris? This is just pathetic

[R3DBelmont456]

A protest because you dont have 500+ ammo for your penta or 100+ for your ogris? This is just pathetic

I don't want 500 ammo back, but I want reasonable ammo, EVERYONE WHO MAINS ROX DOES~!! (40-50 constant agreements) and please don't pretend that you don't care now that you just have other broken weapons to turn to anyway... some of us liked launchers and now we have no reason to use them with their terrible ammo economy... and try as you may but every trick in the book has been tried on me already and it as all been a fruitless effort to make me keep fighting the good fight, DE botched the update up and made a huge mess by overnerfing some weapons and overpowering others, this is not balance, at least not properly executed balance...

Edited August 16, 2014 by R3DBelmont456

[-SLX-J3tAc3]

I tried using the penta, putting rifle ammo mutation does convert ammo, but the ammo pool does feel kinda small. Yes, yes, I do use the penta for ODD/Defense leveling missions, no argument there, but still, I think 30-40 rounds sounds right.

[R3DBelmont456]

I tried using the penta, putting rifle ammo mutation does convert ammo, but the ammo pool does feel kinda small. Yes, yes, I do use the penta for ODD/Defense leveling missions, no argument there, but still, I think 30-40 rounds sounds right.

Most of the people who use them do, as to why people are still against it is beyond me, they've got what they want... so why shoudn't we?...

[YourBusDriver]

Let's try this again, shall we?

 

Oh no! I have a reason to use melee, my secondary, and non-damage mods! Woe is me!~

 

Oh wait! There is already a rebuttal for that. No need to iterate pointless arguments against a slightly larger ammo pool. It is not necessary. 

 

This is also an excellent point. Many players are attempting to argue that launchers should be viewed as auxiliary weapons. This makes no sense. Launchers should be allowed to stand on their own as primary systems. The reason you carry melee, and a secondary is so that you can diversify your equipped damage types, not so that you can compensate for an overly specialized weapon serving as your primary.

 

To be fair the Attica with Thunderbolt doesn't deal nearly as much damage or the AoE size of a dedicated launcher.

 

 

 

+1

 

Players may argue that in DOOM or Call of Duty or Battlefield or whatnot that launchers have minimal ammunition sizes. However, they never mention that:

 

In DOOM, you can pick up weapons off the ground and carry multiple weapons.

 

In Call of Duty, launchers are specified as Secondary Weapons.

 

In Battlefield, launchers and other ordinance are specified as class specific tertiary weapons.

 

In Titanfall, launchers are specified as tertiary weapons as well.

 

Now, I haven't played Halo, so I cannot speak for that. But from the videos I have seen on Halo, again, weapons are readily picked up off the ground. 

 

I don't believe in making these comparisons in the first place to Warframe, but since so many people use this as justification, I must also state the facts so readers are not deluded by lies through omission.

 

In all of those games ammo is more difficult to come by than in Warframe.

 

I've never liked our ammo system. Ammo pools should be infinite. However, in the presence of an ammo system limiting available shots for the strongest weapons does make sense. Some tweaking is required for them to be viable as a main weapon though. (my personal opinions on launchers being used as a main weapon in modes other than defense aside)

 

MW2 is a good example of fun imbalance, you are correct. However, that doesn't mean all imbalance is fun. I think we can all agree 540 rockets was not good imbalance, just a lazy usage of the ammo system that led to easy-moding on defense tiles. We can also agree that there should be a risk-reward aspect in taking a launcher.

 

I agree that 40 rounds would be better. What I'm mainly arguing against here are people who are like "launchers have small ammo pools, lol no longer viable"

Edited August 16, 2014 by YourBusDriver

[YourBusDriver]

The way I see it - an ammo pool anywhere from 30 to 50 is not too bad. If anything it should be at least 25 seeing as most weapons have a 5 times plus base ammo reserves. 

Edited August 16, 2014 by YourBusDriver

[vaugahn]

The way I see it - an ammo pool anywhere from 30 to 50 is not too bad. If anything it should be at least 25 seeing as most weapons have a 5 times plus base ammo reserves. 

 

Anything above 50 would be excessive, but anywhere in that would be fine.

 

The way I see it, taking a launcher should be a tradeoff: you gain huge AoE damage at the expense of reduced close-range and single-target capabilities. When you're running a launcher you should want to use your secondary more than you would with an assault rifle in your primary slot.

[R3DBelmont456]

Anything above 50 would be excessive, but anywhere in that would be fine.

 

The way I see it, taking a launcher should be a tradeoff: you gain huge AoE damage at the expense of reduced close-range and single-target capabilities. When you're running a launcher you should want to use your secondary more than you would with an assault rifle in your primary slot.

I still think the new and improved attica is far more broken than the launchers used to be, considering that split chamber stacks wells with Thunderbolt increasing it's explosive chance to a whopping 58.5% chance to explode doing 250 per bolt which equals 500 dmg per one shot which if you're lucky will do 16X500 or 32X250 which equals a whopping 8000 Blast AoE dmg on an Attica using only Split chamber and Thunderbolt... 

[vaugahn]

I still think the new and improved attica is far more broken than the launchers used to be, considering that split chamber stacks wells with Thunderbolt increasing it's explosive chance to a whopping 58.5% chance to explode doing 250 per bolt which equals 500 dmg per one shot which if you're lucky will do 16X500 or 32X250 which equals a whopping 8000 Blast AoE dmg on an Attica using only Split chamber and Thunderbolt... 

 

If you're lucky you can get 8000 damage. Meanwhile the Ogris (Penta has similar numbers) gives you 18k damage on every shot, not counting getting lucky with split chamber. See the difference there? If ammo capacity and slight AoE are all you look for, might I suggest a Grakata with gas damage on it?

[R3DBelmont456]

If you're lucky you can get 8000 damage. Meanwhile the Ogris (Penta has similar numbers) gives you 18k damage on every shot, not counting getting lucky with split chamber. See the difference there? If ammo capacity and slight AoE are all you look for, might I suggest a Grakata with gas damage on it?

when rockets used to have 540 ammo... YES, I can see that being a problem, but when the attica has 540 rounds and does only 1/3rd of that dmg based on RNG (not counting elemental procs), and all lauchers being able to do what you state, Again based on RNG (without counting additional procs since Blast are it's default dmg anyway), with only having 20 shots, which weapon is then the most logical one to use... you also have to remember that the attica does other base types of damage while's all lauchers do Blast only until otherwise fixed... and Blast can be tanked by a large portion of strong enemies due to the penalty against ferrite, In fact Blast is really most effective against one type of enemy, MOAs...  And it sucks against bosses... Taking any launcher to a Boss fight is practically ASKING your &#! to be handed to you on a silver platter...