Oh Crap, Ran Out Of Ammo

[Viverim]

They're AoE because they're meant to be used on multi target clusters or potentially aimed precisely for high single target damage on heavy units. It does not matter what the players of them expect to do with them, it is their role in the arsenal that's important. Not every weapon/type of weapons should be meant to be 'mained'. And even without being able to main them, they still hold a lot of value any ways. 

 

 

 

Classified as Primary really doesn't say much about usability of weapons. It's just a loadout limiter. Grakata has poor ammo efficiency, which makes it difficult to use without ammo mutation, it'll still drain quickly of ammo even with its increased cap. It can't be used whenever one wants, it has to be managed or it will burn out quickly, so it should be demoted to secondary yes? And you never have to stop using the Akvasto even with their smaller reserve because of their generally well balanced stats and high power, should they become primaries then?  If you primarily use melee does that make it your primary? And then what does that make your primary and secondary? Secondary and tertiary weapons? 

Primaries are guns that we wield with two hands.  

Secondaries are guns we wield with one hand, or dual-wield.

Melee are physical weapons. 

That's really it. 

 

I disagree with this.  Yes, DE(L) treats this as the definitiion, however by making a launcher a Primary weapon, you are denied the use of your other primaries and are thus left using a pistol as your primary weapon.  If they want launchers to be secondary weapons (ie, not the one you are supposed to be using for the most part), then they need to re-categorize them as Secondary weapons, allowing people to use auto rifles, etc.  Nerfing them as Primaries nerfs the entire player, although DE(L)'s current trends seem to be more about nerfing players than actually making the game fun, so this could have been intended.

 

And yes, this is my opinion.  Disagree all that you want.

[Ryouhi]

I disagree with this.  Yes, DE(L) treats this as the definitiion, however by making a launcher a Primary weapon, you are denied the use of your other primaries and are thus left using a pistol as your primary weapon.  If they want launchers to be secondary weapons (ie, not the one you are supposed to be using for the most part), then they need to re-categorize them as Secondary weapons, allowing people to use auto rifles, etc.  Nerfing them as Primaries nerfs the entire player, although DE(L)'s current trends seem to be more about nerfing players than actually making the game fun, so this could have been intended.

 

And yes, this is my opinion.  Disagree all that you want.

Then build an Angstrum - aka secondary launcher :/

[SquirmyBurrito]

1. that was just an assumption because all this guy said was 'muh fun' and you're just all jelly so yeah.

I can maybe see an increase to 25 or 30 max if some people really can't deal with it.

2. And i'm pretty much all for that, because using boltor and brakk are simply my 'i want easy mode' weapons

3. that's why i said use your secondary or melee in the meantime.

I'm not gonna pull out my akzani and try to waste my clip on a few single enemies.

4. If you don't take a secondary with you that's your risk that you take doing so.

Again, i'm not gonna only equip my akzani because i know i will run out of ammo at some point if i have to use them for every enemy

5. I'd rather have ammo refills 'overfill' my ammo than to have to use 20 restores for my supra or akzani^^

 

1. 'muh fun' does not equate to demanding 520 rockets and standing on top of something spamming rockets. OP is asking for 30-40 rockets.

2. I wasn't just talking about damage, I was also talking about an ammo nerf for them too.

3. Not everyone carries secondary and melee weapons (that are capable of acting as a primary).

4. The problem is that with the sword alone update it became obvious that DE's intent is that every weapon be capable of being used alone for the level of content that it is balanced around. If launcher users can no longer just bring a launcher for their missions, DE has regressed.

5. I never said ammo restores should get nerfed. You have a bad habit of seeing and responding to things that no one says.

 

Then build an Angstrum - aka secondary launcher :/

 

Carrying two launchers that compete for the same ammo is a good idea why? And if you were saying they should use the angstrum instead of the primary launchers you missed the entire point.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Some people felt it fun.

 

So you just wanted to remove the fun from them? Or is it simply jealousy?

Nope, just want to remove OP tactics that have no place in the game.

 

Stop, just stop. This assumption that anyone who complains about the ammo nerf was just standing on top of something spamming rockets is nothing more than a obvious attempt at devaluing their input. Not everyone players like that. Hell, you have no way of knowing whether or not the people complaining in this thread play like that. I played apollodorus, I ran around, I ran out of ammo 7 times. Infested are not the only faction in this game, and the person you replied to did say anything about what faction they were fighting.

Everyone that I have called out on it has basically admitted to it. With a proper build, you will rarely if ever run out of ammo when playing well.  Add in ammo mutation and ammo restores, and you will never run out of ammo unless you are spamming it like crazy.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

they need to re-categorize them (launchers) as Secondary weapons, allowing people to use auto rifles, etc. 

So why don't you make a thread asking them to do that instead of complaining about the completely justified ammo reduction?

[Ryouhi]

1. 'muh fun' does not equate to demanding 520 rockets and standing on top of something spamming rockets. OP is asking for 30-40 rockets.

2. I wasn't just talking about damage, I was also talking about an ammo nerf for them too.

3. Not everyone carries secondary and melee weapons (that are capable of acting as a primary).

4. The problem is that with the sword alone update it became obvious that DE's intent is that every weapon be capable of being used alone for the level of content that it is balanced around. If launcher users can no longer just bring a launcher for their missions, DE has regressed.

5. I never said ammo restores should get nerfed. You have a bad habit of seeing and responding to things that no one says.

 

 

Carrying two launchers that compete for the same ammo is a good idea why? And if you were saying they should use the angstrum instead of the primary launchers you missed the entire point.

1. Anyway he wasn't very cooperative nor did he have any meaningful arguments other than those

2. Sure go ahead, i'd generally like for each weapon to have an individual amount of ammo that is more balanced around each weapon

3&4. but that's not only a problem launchers face, there are lots of weapons you will simply run out of ammo with due to bad ammo economy - mostly weapons with high fire rate and low damage per bullet.

If you know that you are going to have ammo problems you will need a backup weapon, that's simply how it is.

Like i said before, i'm not gonna go with only AKZani or Boltor Prime

 

That's not only true for ammo, but if you use f.e. the Boar Prime, you'd want to have some kind of long range secondary as back up, because boar is extremely limited by range.

Another example, i'm using Paris Prime, very strong (mostly) single target damage, i'll want to have something that's able to get rid of crowds, like my akzani or detron.

I think you understand where i'm going with this.

Some weapons are simply better to take 'solo' than others, but having at least one backup weapon that fills your other weapons disadventages solves that.

 

5. neither did i say anything about nerfing them?

i just said that i need a ton of restores to get my Akzani back up to max ammo, while you just need 1 restore to get max ammo launcher.

So in the end i am wasting a lot more restores and ressources for most weapons than you would for launchers.

[Noble_Cactus]

If sniper rifles and explosives were the only things able to oneshot enemies at lower levels, then I'd be okay with sniper ammo being a rare drop. But just about anything can oneshot at lower levels.

 

At higher levels, the Vectis and the bows are still viable choices because of the high amount of single target damage they put out for ammo spent, which makes them very efficient. Penta/Ogris also used to be very efficient, but the recent ammo nerf was too much.

 

I agree with the OP's suggestion of maybe 40-50 ammo max. That way, you'd still have to put thought into each grenade/rocket that you fired, but you wouldn't run dry halfway through a standard mission.

[DSpite]

Stop, just stop. This assumption that anyone who complains about the ammo nerf was just standing on top of something spamming rockets is nothing more than a obvious attempt at devaluing their input. Not everyone players like that. Hell, you have no way of knowing whether or not the people complaining in this thread play like that. I played apollodorus, I ran around, I ran out of ammo 7 times. Infested are not the only faction in this game, and the person you replied to did say anything about what faction they were fighting.

 

 

Show me where those of us complaining stated we usually stand on something and shoot rockets the entire time. Oh I forgot, you can't. Because that's a stupid assumption you guys keep making. Go straw man somewhere else.

 

And stop assuming people are playing defense missions. There are other mission types.

 

 

1. No one is asking for 520.

2. Then the Boltor Prime, Soma, Brakk, etc etc need to be nerfed. Because they are not balanced.

3. "You won't run out of ammo if you play this particular way." -What if they don't want to stand around and wait for enemies to bunch up into big groups? Normally waiting for enemies to bunch up ends with you not getting a chance to kill anything because the BP user standing next to you mows down the entire crowd in ~1 second while you were waiting for them to bunch together.

4. Too bad that only works in squads of friends and solo. What if they don't want to bring a secondary?

5. Doublestandard. Ammo restores waste tons of ammo as you get overfilled in just one burst. No one should be forced to play a specific frame just so they can enjoy a particular weapon.

 

Ran out on what wave numbers?

[SquirmyBurrito]

Nope, just want to remove OP tactics that have no place in the game.

 

Everyone that I have called out on it has basically admitted to it. With a proper build, you will rarely if ever run out of ammo when playing well.  Add in ammo mutation and ammo restores, and you will never run out of ammo unless you are spamming it like crazy.

 

Their is nothing OP about standing on a box and firing rockets (assuming that is what you're referring to). It isn't balanced, but it isn't over powered either.

 

I don't remember seeing anyone actually admitting to standing on boxes and spamming rockets. The closest I saw that that was someone pointing out that some people might find that fun. If by 'proper build' you mean 'a build that uses the now practically required ammo mutation mod' then you already know where I stand on that issue. I refuse to give in to the doublestandard that is being against Serration and Split-chamber as required mods, but being in favor of ammo mutation mods as requirements for mods. I also refuse to waste my ammo restores. An increase from 20 to 30-40 would be enough for me to be happy.

 

1. Anyway he wasn't very cooperative nor did he have any meaningful arguments other than those

2. Sure go ahead, i'd generally like for each weapon to have an individual amount of ammo that is more balanced around each weapon

3&4. but that's not only a problem launchers face, there are lots of weapons you will simply run out of ammo with due to bad ammo economy - mostly weapons with high fire rate and low damage per bullet.

If you know that you are going to have ammo problems you will need a backup weapon, that's simply how it is.

Like i said before, i'm not gonna go with only AKZani or Boltor Prime

 

That's not only true for ammo, but if you use f.e. the Boar Prime, you'd want to have some kind of long range secondary as back up, because boar is extremely limited by range.

Another example, i'm using Paris Prime, very strong (mostly) single target damage, i'll want to have something that's able to get rid of crowds, like my akzani or detron.

I think you understand where i'm going with this.

Some weapons are simply better to take 'solo' than others, but having at least one backup weapon that fills your other weapons disadventages solves that.

 

5. neither did i say anything about nerfing them?

i just said that i need a ton of restores to get my Akzani back up to max ammo, while you just need 1 restore to get max ammo launcher.

So in the end i am wasting a lot more restores and ressources for most weapons than you would for launchers.

 

1. That may be true, but that doesn't make jumping to wild conclusions and better.

2. Cool, and while we're at it let's get launcher ammo pools buffed to 30-40.

3. And those are weapons I have already claimed need more ammo.

4. See 3.

And that needs to be fixed.

 Why wouldn't you go into a mission with only a Boltor Prime? That thing does work. I used to main my Wraith Twin Vipers (as in I'd bring them, and a massively under-modded Amphis).

5. No you don't. One ammo restore provides a ton of ammo http://warframe.wikia.com/wiki/Medium_Team_Ammo_Restore

I assumed you were talking about nerfing them because it doesn't take a bunch of them to restore all your ammo. One ammo restore overfills my launcher. I get filled up and end up wasting pulses. So they're a waste of my resources. I end up wasting 2/3rds of the ammo that they pump out for sniper pool weapons.

 

Ran out on what wave numbers?

 

Apollodorus is the mercury survival mission. We stayed until the enemies got to ~level 40. At that point I was spending half the time reviving my teammates so we left. 

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

If by 'proper build' you mean 'a build that uses the now practically required ammo mutation mod'

Anyone with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills would realize that isn't what I meant at all.

[SquirmyBurrito]

Anyone with even rudimentary reading comprehension skills would realize that isn't what I meant at all.

 

I have excellent reading comprehension, the problem is that you failed to specify what you meant. That's why I typed my reply the way I did. I didn't want to flat out accuse you of saying that, but I wasn't certain that you didn't mean that.

[LukeAura]

I disagree with this.  Yes, DE(L) treats this as the definitiion, however by making a launcher a Primary weapon, you are denied the use of your other primaries and are thus left using a pistol as your primary weapon.  If they want launchers to be secondary weapons (ie, not the one you are supposed to be using for the most part), then they need to re-categorize them as Secondary weapons, allowing people to use auto rifles, etc.  Nerfing them as Primaries nerfs the entire player, although DE(L)'s current trends seem to be more about nerfing players than actually making the game fun, so this could have been intended.

 

And yes, this is my opinion.  Disagree all that you want.

Pistols tend to be more powerful than primaries, so I don't see that as being a problem. And don't forget you have abilities and melee to compliment as well. There are 'launcher' type secondaries too. Angstrum and Castanas. Both function just like the primary counterparts more or less. Primary launchers exist to give people who 'main' secondaries a launcher. 

And your idea that primaries should be weapons used primarily is fine, but your opinion that DE just wants to nerf is very definitely wrong on account of the oberon buffs coming out, and the sniper and other buffs that came with the launcher rebalance, and is quite disrespectful being based only on the evidence that supports it while entirely ignoring the evidence that stacks against it.  

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

I have excellent reading comprehension, the problem is that you failed to specify what you meant. That's why I typed my reply the way I did. I didn't want to flat out accuse you of saying that, but I wasn't certain that you didn't mean that.

See:

 

With a proper build, you will rarely if ever run out of ammo when playing well.  Add in ammo mutation and ammo restores, and you will never run out of ammo unless you are spamming it like crazy.

Look at the highlighted text. You will see that my first sentence is talking about a proper build. The second sentence suggests that by making the of change of adding ammo mutation and ammo restores leads to a differing result.  Basic reading comprehension would have lead you to the understanding that I am not saying a proper build includes ammo mutation because if it did then you could not add ammo mutation a second time.

 

So you either lack reading comprehension, or more likely, you purposely misconstrued my point so you could launch off on a straw man tirade about double standards and so on.

Edited August 28, 2014 by (PS4)DesecratedFlame

[SquirmyBurrito]

See:

 

Look at the highlighted text. You will see that my first sentence is talking about a proper build. The second sentence suggests that by making the of change of adding ammo mutation and ammo restores leads to a differing result.  Basic reading comprehension would have lead you to the understanding that I am not saying a proper build includes ammo mutation because if it did then you could not add ammo mutation a second time.

 

So you either lack reading comprehension, or more likely, you purposely misconstrued my point so you could launch off on a straw man tirade about double standards and so on.

 

Or (this being the case) your sentence doesn't make any sense. 'Proper build' is vague and implies that if you're running out of ammo your build isn't 'proper'. Please explain what a 'proper' build is so I can figure out why I managed to run out of ammo 7 times in one mission with what I assumed was a great build. I also did not make use of the straw man fallacy. Nice try.

Edited August 28, 2014 by SquirmyBurrito

[JacobLittle]

It's 2 pickups to restore all your ammo, there are hundreds of them on the ground after 15 minutes of survival. You can also use the ammo restores that can be built in foundry.

Yes, it's not an issue at all if you only run survival alone.

 

And defense as well as interception...

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Or (this being the case) your sentence doesn't make any sense. 'Proper build' is vague and implies that if you're running out of ammo your build isn't 'proper'. Please explain what a 'proper' build is so I can figure out why I managed to run out of ammo 7 times in one mission with what I assumed was a great build. I also did not make use of the straw man fallacy. Nice try.

"With a proper build, you will rarely if ever run out of ammo when playing well."

^This sentence makes complete sense.

 

"Add in ammo mutation and ammo restores, and you will never run out of ammo unless you are spamming it like crazy."

^This following sentence shows that ammo mutation was not included in the original term "proper build" as this sentence implies the further addition of ammo mutation will give you a different result.

 

These things are obvious to people with basic reading comprehension.  Allow me to give you another example you are less invested in.

 

"A peanut butter and jelly sandwhich is delicious.  Add in mayonnaise, and it becomes disqusting."

^As you can see with these example sentences, they follow the sam structure as my previous sentences.  It shows that the second sentence is showing a different result than the first because of a change to the first.  This clearly indicates that the change was not present in the original sentence.

 

/lesson

 

Purposely misinterpreting what I said so that you can more easily knockdown the false argument, rather than address my own, is a strawman fallacy.

[SquirmyBurrito]

"With a proper build, you will rarely if ever run out of ammo when playing well."

^This sentence makes complete sense.

 

"Add in ammo mutation and ammo restores, and you will never run out of ammo unless you are spamming it like crazy."

^This following sentence shows that ammo mutation was not included in the original term "proper build" as this sentence implies the further addition of ammo mutation will give you a different result.

 

These things are obvious to people with basic reading comprehension.  Allow me to give you another example you are less invested in.

 

"A peanut butter and jelly sandwhich is delicious.  Add in mayonnaise, and it becomes disqusting."

^As you can see with these example sentences, they follow the sam structure as my previous sentences.  It shows that the second sentence is showing a different result than the first because of a change to the first.  This clearly indicates that the change was not present in the original sentence.

 

/lesson

 

Purposely misinterpreting what I said so that you can more easily knockdown the false argument, rather than address my own, is a strawman fallacy.

 

Not really. 'proper build' seems intentionally vague and it really doesn't tell us anything. But it does shift the blame onto the player who is running out of ammo rather on the fact that the weapon has a tiny amount of ammo in the first place.

 

The sandwich example does not work as you clearly spell out what is in the sandwich. You did no such thing with your 'proper build'. A peanut Butter and Jelly sandwich is a sandwich with peanut butter and jelly. A proper build is... A better example would be "A proper sandwich is delicious. Add in mayonnaise and it is disgusting" The first sentence can be misinterpreted as you are vague. 

 

You need to better plan your lessons.

 

>Implying I purposely misinterpreted anything when (as I have already stated) your first sentence was so vague as to fail to rule out any interpretation.

 

Now, please answer my question. What is a 'proper build'? I'm waiting eagerly to see how my build differs from a 'proper build' so that I can figure out why I ran out of ammo so many times.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

The sandwich example does not work as you clearly spell out what is in the sandwich. . .  A proper build is... A better example would be "A proper sandwich is delicious. Add in mayonnaise and it is disgusting" The first sentence can be misinterpreted as you are vague. 

Again you miss the point.  Even with your example, it is clear that the first (proper) sandwich did not have Mayo, as adding mayo changed it from delicious to disgusting.