give us infinite ammo

[NekroArts]

Gawd this is getting even more hard to read.

[Rhekemi]

49 minutes ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

(You'll notice a theme with me. I tend to hate anything that distracts from the core game play. I hated having to do scans too. I want to focus on the run-n-gun, I don't want to play photography minigames).

I bought my cat DNA with plat. It was cheap. I was tired. The droprate was sh*t. A friend also gave me an imprint. I've never gone back to scan anymore kavats, and I like scanning things. (Helios has 31 percent of my usage/the most.)

I understand hating something.

I don't understand wanting to change it when I am in the minority--which is what I'd be if I made your argument about ammo restores.

Making a topic like this should be two-fold:

• Gauge support (how many people are out there like me?)
• Make a valid case for the change.

Even if you've done the latter, I don't think we've seen the former. It might've helped if things stayed more civil, for sure, but no gamer is shy about expressing support or dislike of an idea.

My point is you and I and every member is entitled to our hatred of any game mechanic. That just won't translate into more than a minority view sometimes.

21 minutes ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

Well, that's just like your opinion, man. I disagree wholeheartedly with it as well.  Farming is fun. Standing around waiting for 10 ammo restores to finish, then doing it again, is not.

It isn't fun. But the solution is not unlimited ammo on all weapons, or a select few weapons. That's the thing.

Quote

I also never run out of ammo. Why? Because if a weapon becomes ammo inefficient, then it has to go on the shelf, no matter how much fun it used to be (R.I.P. Angstrum).

I have run out of ammo on bow weapons that didn't have ammo mutation on (sorties), and in endless missions. Dual pistols always run out, but I keep them. Dex Furis (my original set) has sentimental value.

Quote

This is not the kind of tedium that promotes either fun nor plat sales. It just wastes people's time and annoys them. It is not healthy for the game.

Maybe. But unlimited ammo is a poor solution to a minor annoyance. My point stands.

Quote

The majority, in fact, does not rule. DE does. Most people didn't want GP touched and it still happened.

Okay, let's leave my generalization out of it and use Vacuum Precept as an example. Majority really wanted that change. Finally got it years later, but particularly by being very vocal this year.

Greedy Pull was promoting a meta, a static playstyle. DE doesn't like those promoted. See my earlier points about developers wanting players to use variety. It's also why Vacuum Precept wound up being the best of both worlds.

We all know the story: DE makes something tedious. We like efficiency. We create a meta. We use the meta. We trivialize the tedium. DE changes a key part of the meta. 

Now, we don't have to like that change or agree with it, and we most likely won't, but their reasons for changing it aren't because they don't listen to us. It's because we're running the game in an unintended way. Saryn. Another example. Map-wide nuke. Draco. We could go on with the list of polarizing changes, the back and forth between us running a meta and DE disrupting it, but you get the idea.

Quote

Be honest, when was the last time you busted out a Kohm, Amprex, or Angstrum on an endless mission?

I sold my Angstrum really early on, but hope to rebuild it soon enough. I was a cash-strapped newbie who didn't like self-immolation, despite loving a rocket gun that fit in one hand. I still have an Amprex (I think), but don't use it. I don't really like the gun itself. Never built Kohm yet.

I'm at a point now where I need to keep everything, so I'll catch 'em all eventually.

I used to run out on Hikou Prime, then I modded it for ammo efficiency. Ogris runs out as does my Penta when used exclusively from range. Those and poorly modded bows (during sorites or long engagements) are about the only ones I pop restores for.

Ammo restores are annoying. Yes.

But they are a minor annoyance that don't warrant the suggested change in this topic.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Rhekemi

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

Just now, Rhekemi said:

I bought my cat DNA with plat. It was cheap. I was tired. The droprate was sh*t. A friend also gave me an imprint. I've never gone back to scan anymore kavats, and I like scanning things. (Helios has 31 percent of my usage.)

I am pretty sure you can't buy more ammo with plat, which was my point.

It's not a poor solution though. I have proven that the current system is tedious. I have shown that my suggested solution would work. I have shown my solution fixes several issues, and I have shown that my solution does not introduce any new issues that are not already present because of TARs. And saying there is this other possible solution has no effect on the merits of this one. If you think another solution is more viable then make a thread about it, and we can debate it on its own merits too, but it has no effects on the merits of this one.

All you have said is that there might be another solutions or started to use an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. Wasn't it you who said we should be looking for a solution, not just arguing to win.  Because right now, it seems like you are just arguing to win and assuming you cannot possibly be wrong.

 

[Rhekemi]

33 minutes ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

I am pretty sure you can't buy more ammo with plat, which was my point.

No. Your explicit point point was you don't like tedious things that take away from playing the game. Like scanning cats.

If you had an ulterior point, you've only just now disclosed it.

With regards to doing things you hate instead of playing the game, I merely agreed: we all have things we hate. 

And then I pointed out that just because we hate them, doesn't mean a systemic change needs to be made to address it.

In your case, you hate ammo restores. You hate farming for them. You hate building them. You don't use weapons that are inefficient, and that way you don't run out of ammo.

To address that, you offer that unlimited ammo should be implemented across all weapons.

For all intents and purposes, you assert (over and over) that unlimited ammo is the same as ammo restores.

So you want unlimited ammo because you hate building ammo restores. Okay.

Quote

And saying there is this other possible solution has no effect on the merits of this one. If you think another solution is more viable then make a thread about it, and we can debate it on its own merits too, but it has no effects on the merits of this one.

The other solutions fall in line with current weapon system changes and ways to make diverse gear more appealing. Your unlimited ammo restore suggestion falls in line with Universal Vacuum, but lacks any broad appeal.

Quote

All you have said is that there might be another solutions or started to use an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. Wasn't it you who said we should be looking for a solution, not just arguing to win.  Because right now, it seems like you are just arguing to win and assuming you cannot possibly be wrong.

Take a moment to consider what you've just said. Please.

A) I shouldn't offer solutions here. They have no merits and don't affect this discussion.

B) We should be looking for solutions, not just arguing to win.

I can't do both.

Do you want solutions to the ammo consumption problem, to discuss and debate them, or do you only want your suggested solution to the ammo consumption problem?

If you have a specific thing you'd like to point out that I'm wrong about, feel free. I haven't seen anything yet since the other page. I told you that you had to address well-argued critiques. You said you don't if it's insulting. I posted to acknowledge that you have every right to do that, and it's a good reason not to address it. My mea culpa was that I spoke from my own viewpoint. How do you come away from that thinking I assume I can never possibly be wrong?

Furthermore, I never said "don't just argue to win". Never said that. I said debating without ever conceding a point isn't true debate.

I have:

• conceded points (read back my posts)
• agreed with you
• saw the underlying issue itself
• and worked to find solutions with you

All while disagreeing with the need for your original solution.

As for winning, I don't argue just to win. But I do believe in actively, honestly, and logically trying to destroy a poor argument in a debate. I made that plain.

You have not proven that your argument is strong, or the change needed. I haven't completely destroyed your argument, either.

There's middle-ground for limited change to certain weapon classes, or passives, but I remain firmly against your original suggestion. Especially after you clarified (something I originally didn't catch), that you want ammo restores gone because of the tedium.

By the way, a popular appeal of a suggestion or mechanic in gaming isn't a fallacy. It's not even a popularity contest. It's a reality. Specifically in a gaming community where we actively help shape the game to varying degrees. It is necessary to gauge how well it would be received, its usefulness, to the very community that would play with the new feature.

Our suggestions are for the game played by the entire community. It's absolutely imperative to gauge not just the devs interest but the community's. It isn't a tactic to win. The opinion of the community matters just as much as your opinion does, especially when your suggested change will affect them as well, regardless of whether they need or want this change, or hate ammo restores as much as you or I do.

That is my point there. How they feel about it matters. It can't just be about your suggestion and you defending it. Your suggestion is meant to change the game. The community plays the game. Not just you.

 

Edited October 23, 2016 by Rhekemi

[Bobtm]

23 minutes ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

I have proven that the current system is tedious. I have shown that my suggested solution would work. I have shown my solution fixes several issues, and I have shown that my solution does not introduce any new issues that are not already present because of TARs.

Actually you haven't done a single one of those things thus far.  The current system isn't "tedious" as picking up ammo is not some special thing.  I already explained why the acquisition of ammo is not an issue.  Beyond this, your proposed formula for this solution is incredibly poor and would not work at all.  Not only does it make some weapons have unusably long reload times, upwards of 6-8 seconds, but it also increases even the reload times of slower weapons like Rubico, which ends up with a reload time of ~5 seconds with your proposed formula.

Your solution breaks far, far more things than it supposedly claims to fix.  In addition, it creates even more tedium since it produces these obscenely long reload times on pretty much every weapon in the game.

The core reason this is problematic, is that you're trying to solve what is in effect a non-problem, with a ill-conceived solution.  Weapons having to use ammo is not a problem.  If a few specific weapons have ammo economy issues, then that's an issue which is better resolved by modifying those weapons' characteristics.  Not by breaking the entire swath of weaponry.

[erny0507]

No

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

9 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

No. Your explicit point point was you don't like tedious things that take away from playing the game. Like scanning cats.

Wrong. That was a side note, hence why it was in parenthesis. It was there to add context, not to be my central point.

We should be looking for solutions. This thread is for the solution I am suggesting and its merits. If we stumble across a solution you think is better then make a thread for it, and we will discuss its merits there. If you have solutions for improving this particular suggestion then share them. There is no contradiction. You can do both. 

15 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

By the way, a popular appeal of a suggestion or mechanic in gaming isn't a fallacy.

It's a fallacy when you claim something is better or more desirable because it is more popular. There are plenty of unpopular changes that need to be made. You are also falling into the "vocal minority" trap. Just because a vocal minority on the forums believes something, one way or another, does not mean that the community as a whole does.

As such, I argue based on logic, not on (forum) popularity.

11 minutes ago, Bobtm said:

eyond this, your proposed formula for this solution is incredibly poor and would not work at all.

Fairly certain I already conceded that point and said that it was only a rough starting point.

13 minutes ago, Bobtm said:

what is in effect a non-problem

Amprex, 'nuff said

14 minutes ago, Bobtm said:

If a few specific weapons have ammo economy issues

The problem is it is more than just one or two weapons and once DE rekts their ammo, they call them "in a good place" and never revist them. The only way to fix it, is to target the core problem. That's what this suggestion does.

[BloodForTheBloodGods]

Soz fam, not a good idea. I'd rather run out of ammo, and switch between weapons then take an extra 10-20% longer reloading. There's a few weapons, amprex and ignis, already mentioned, that aren't good enough to excuse how inefficient they are, but infinite ammo isn't the answer. You bring up restores, which is something that already sort of causes balance issues, so that's not really valid.

Edited October 23, 2016 by BloodForTheBloodGods

[UltimateSpinDash]

Guys, stop wasting your breath.

I've noticed Flame before. Actually thought he'd disappeared for a while, but apparently he never did. Hasn't changed at all though.

All of his arguments start like this and all of them end like this. He's absolutely convinced that his ideas are great and would make Warframe better. And frankly, everyone who ever posted an idea to the forums believed that at least initially, else he/she wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

I wouldn't even call him a troll like some people here suggested. It's just that nothing you say will convince him that this is a bad idea. You won't get anywhere in a discussion with him. So unless you enjoy arguing against a wall, let this thread die.

[(PSN)Mofojokers]

Unlimited Ammo is a curious idea and works for some games normally by keeping it to starting weapons with low damage.

Personally never really had a problem with ammo but my main deal is carving enemies into bacon. ?

I'd recommend Ammo Mutation and increasing magazine size if you find it a problem. Or I'd recommend weapons like Lex and Tigress Sancti or Prime with a good melee weapon.

I'm very careful with my weapons like Spira prime but i always swap between weapons depending on target.

Really love sliding shotgun blast into quick melee swipes.

 

But definitely a no from me, sorry bud. 

 

[Krion112]

Ammo Restores are not a valid argument; they're a deliberately game-breaking mechanic, same as Health Restores, Shield Restores, and Energy Restores. If you waste your time hanging around one, that's on you. And, honestly, I don't have to waste my time on them, so why do you?

Ammo exists in-game as a balance mechanism. It's a risk that encourages proper aim and rewards players for find the best application of a weapon. Granted, Warframe has issues about how it handles ammo, but there are some solutions to fix it, but it really hasn't been addressed yet just because it's not been a huge deal to begin with. My argument is for DE to fix the Ammo system, not remove it.

Infinite ammo just encourages more spam, which is still one of the most complained about things I still see (ie, Mirage, Tonkor, etc). It creates no risk, it's too safe of a mechanic when we are already way too powerful in some regards.

 

7 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

This is not the kind of tedium that promotes either fun nor plat sales. It just wastes people's time and annoys them. It is not healthy for the game.

Your subjective opinion, and apparently the minority opinion. You must also know that because then you pointed out:

7 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

The majority, in fact, does not rule. DE does. Most people didn't want GP touched and it still happened.

Right, but how likely at all does it seem like DE wants to make the game easier? DE has been pushing for more difficulty as of late, and Ammo is an easy mechanic by which to use for amplifying difficulty because of its risky nature. And, the glorious thing, is it's a system that is already in place, and while other systems have been changed or outright removed in the past, ammo is highly likely here to stay.

Why? Balance, difficulty, risk. There was only tedium to things like stamina which were inevitably removed, because even using the system right was punished. However, Ammo and Energy exist for the express reasons of balancing weapons against each other and presenting a risk to a player, that even if you're good at dodging and surviving, or even placing your abilities right, mindlessly using your weapon in the unintended fashion will result in favor for your opposition.

Therefore, I'd argue removing this system doesn't solve anything. It would just contribute to the age-old complaint that Warframe isn't difficult enough.

 

7 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

Be honest, when was the last time you busted out a Kohm, Amprex, or Angstrum on an endless mission?

All the time, each of those weapons is integral to different builds I have. Kohm on an Offense-oriented build for Mirage, Amprex for a steadfast-Defense build for Vauban, and Angstrum as a method of quick crowd-destruction for Nyx.

I have found that the only weapons that have no purpose in Warframe are the plethora of excess swords we have, the ones that can only be obtained in alerts and what-not; most of them could just be alternate skins for the Skana or Cronus.

 

[Drasiel]

Ammo already kind of does this in archwing. They seem to be balancing it based on ammo regeneration time instead of reload as there is no magazine. I think it would be cool to have this with certain weapons in normal warframe but certainly not all of them. 

[ArchPhaeton]

Just the title tells me this is a bait thread. Let it die.

[Rhekemi]

8 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

Wrong. That was a side note, hence why it was in parenthesis. It was there to add context, not to be my central point.

No. That's just not true, I'm afraid. It may have been your intention, but you did not state it as a central point. We can only take your posts at face value if you don't present your point or facts plainly enough. 

So, yes, your explicitly stated point was you don't like tedium, and prefer to play the game. Scanning kavats supported that point, just as not using ammo inefficient guns (Angstrum) supports the point. In both scenarios, you don't waste time with things that make you stand around waiting when you could be playing the game.

For further evidence, here is your post in full:

10 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

I never said it was your assertion.  That is irrelevant. I am asking what infinite ammo would break that it does not. It doesn't hurt my argument at all. My argument right from the near-start was that ammo restores are tedious because you have to stand around waiting for them before the mission, have to farm for the materials, etc.

The reason for not wanting to rely on TAR is above. It is tedious and distracts from the core gameplay, i.e. the running and gunning. Infinite ammo does no harm that TARs do not already do, while removing a ton of needless tedium. (You'll notice a theme with me. I tend to hate anything that distracts from the core game play. I hated having to do scans too. I want to focus on the run-n-gun, I don't want to play photography minigames).

There is absolutely nothing about platinum there. Not explicitly, not implicitly.

You stand corrected based on your own words. If your intended central point was that you cannot buy more ammo with platinum, please feel free to state that was what you meant but did not say.

8 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

We should be looking for solutions.

While I actually have been doing this, "we should be looking for solutions" is your phrasing.

You introduced it earlier in an attempt to score a point by asserting that I wasn't "trying to help look for solutions" and was simply arguing to win. 

The problems with that are:

• I see the issue, but it's, as I've said over and over, a minor annoyance.
• It isn't a problem that needs a solution.
• Your suggested solution is poor, and unnecessary. Whether you accept this won't change my objective opinion, nor anyone else's.
• If it does need to be addressed by your solution, I have already offered or agreed with limited scope "unlimited ammo" on specific weapons, while stating that it will still lead back to unlimited ammo on all weapons which we do not need.
• I have offered original solutions that are in-line with new, exciting mechanic systems DE is already working with.

 

8 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

This thread is for the solution I am suggesting and its merits. If we stumble across a solution you think is better then make a thread for it, and we will discuss its merits there. If you have solutions for improving this particular suggestion then share them. There is no contradiction. You can do both. 

That may be your wish, but it's not something you can realistically enforce.

Not even DE can enforce that in their own threads created for actual patches and implemented changes. If the community sees a better way to solve a problem, we have, can and will post within that thread if we choose to.

It would be easier to make a new thread, but there's no need, and no way to enforce it.

That said, I'm doubtful I'll make a new thread because I still don't see a problem that needs addressing. Only an issue, a minor annoyance. 

The passive system itself I might make something for down the road.

 

8 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

It's a fallacy when you claim something is better or more desirable because it is more popular. There are plenty of unpopular changes that need to be made. You are also falling into the "vocal minority" trap. Just because a vocal minority on the forums believes something, one way or another, does not mean that the community as a whole does.

As such, I argue based on logic, not on (forum) popularity.

You know, I was probably very close to the truth when I said (in my first post here) that you debate from the standpoint that you believe you're always right, that your argument's HP cannot be sufficiently chipped as long as you say it hasn't been chipped.

You continue to:

• create new flaming hoops for your topic's critics to jump through in order to discredit your idea (we have to prove to you that infinite ammo isn't any different from spamming ammo restores; we have to prove we use ammo-hogs like Angstrum; we cannot use the collective opinion of the community within context credibly because you say it's just a popularity contest fallacy)
• while continuing to ignore all the time we invested in discrediting your idea with facts
• and ignoring our objective opinions as fellow gamers using the same weapons and ammo but not seeing a problem that needs your solution
• and all the while you ignore how subjective and selfish your request for this change really is.

Ignoring the damage dealt to the pod and recasting Snow Globe infinitely is one way to win. Yes. But credible hits have been landed, the pods spewing sparks and hissing, wires are hanging loose. But eventually you can outlast all your debate opponents, especially if we stop spwaning (all run out of patience and leave).

I will, however, make clear, one last time, why our collective opinions as fellow gamers are important within the context of this thread:

• Our suggestions (and yours) are for the game played by the entire community.

• It's absolutely imperative to gauge not just the devs interest but the community's. It isn't a tactic to win.

• Even if the devs agree with you and disagree with us, for now, you still have to go through us. 

• Your idea has to pass muster with us. Or at least it should. That's the whole point of the forum. To reach both the devs and your fellow gamers.

• We're not just a bunch of voices: we're gamers who play the same game, with varying levels of expertise in it. Our view of your solution as casuals, new players, veterans who know every inch of the game, or hardcores absolutely matters. 

• The opinion of the community matters just as much as your opinion does, especially when your suggested change will affect them as well, regardless of whether they need or want this change, or hate ammo restores as much as you or I do.

 

5 hours ago, UltimateSpinDash said:

Guys, stop wasting your breath.

I've noticed Flame before. Actually thought he'd disappeared for a while, but apparently he never did. Hasn't changed at all though.

All of his arguments start like this and all of them end like this. He's absolutely convinced that his ideas are great and would make Warframe better. And frankly, everyone who ever posted an idea to the forums believed that at least initially, else he/she wouldn't have posted it in the first place.

I wouldn't even call him a troll like some people here suggested. It's just that nothing you say will convince him that this is a bad idea. You won't get anywhere in a discussion with him. So unless you enjoy arguing against a wall, let this thread die.

Interesting. If there's an actual pattern, that's worth noting. That said, I really don't mind contrarians (if he is one, I don't know) if I have the time and inclinations. For now, I still do.

 

[Gelkor]

I'll be the first admit, it's rare that OP and I see eye to eye on anythying, but I have to say I'm in agreement on this. 

Managing an ammo reserve is, in my mind, just as tedious as managing Stamina was back in the day before Parkour 2.0.

We already have factors in the game to limit gunplay and make it engaging, reloading and clip/magazine size. Total ammo pool is only very rarely an actual problem, and when it is, you simply circumvent it with restores. It's not engaging, only annoying, and that doesn't make it a challenging or interesting game mechanic. I also wouldn't mind that it frees up a lot of clutter on the battlefield. There's also the annoying thing of launchers sharing the same ammo pool, which is just insulting to bow users. 

*shrug*

[(PSN)abbacephas]

12 minutes ago, Gelkor said:

I'll be the first admit, it's rare that OP and I see eye to eye on anythying, but I have to say I'm in agreement on this. 

Managing an ammo reserve is, in my mind, just as tedious as managing Stamina was back in the day before Parkour 2.0.

We already have factors in the game to limit gunplay and make it engaging, reloading and clip/magazine size. Total ammo pool is only very rarely an actual problem, and when it is, you simply circumvent it with restores. It's not engaging, only annoying, and that doesn't make it a challenging or interesting game mechanic. I also wouldn't mind that it frees up a lot of clutter on the battlefield. There's also the annoying thing of launchers sharing the same ammo pool, which is just insulting to bow users. 

*shrug*

Since the bolded above is the case, I still fail to see how implementing infinite ammo will in any way significantly impact (translated: benefit) the game in any way. Is ammo management such a chore that it needs to be bypassed entirely?

[Gelkor]

12 minutes ago, (PS4)abbacephas said:

Since the bolded above is the case, I still fail to see how implementing infinite ammo will in any way significantly impact (translated: benefit) the game in any way. Is ammo management such a chore that it needs to be bypassed entirely?

Reducing visual clutter, freeing up processing power, less numbers on the HUD, less worrying about re-balancing old weapons that unfairly have smaller ammo pools, no longer gimping bows and other launchers because certain secondaries arbitrarily share their ammo pool. 

In short, it would make the game slightly cleaner and slightly faster paced. I don't personally see how that's a bad thing.

Edited October 23, 2016 by Gelkor

[Rhekemi]

17 minutes ago, Gelkor said:

I'll be the first admit, it's rare that OP and I see eye to eye on anythying, but I have to say I'm in agreement on this. 

Managing an ammo reserve is, in my mind, just as tedious as managing Stamina was back in the day before Parkour 2.0.

We already have factors in the game to limit gunplay and make it engaging, reloading and clip/magazine size. Total ammo pool is only very rarely an actual problem, and when it is, you simply circumvent it with restores. It's not engaging, only annoying, and that doesn't make it a challenging or interesting game mechanic. I also wouldn't mind that it frees up a lot of clutter on the battlefield. There's also the annoying thing of launchers sharing the same ammo pool, which is just insulting to bow users. 

*shrug*

Not here to dissuade you, and it's good to see another argument in favor for the OP's idea.

Just a few points, though.

Stamina and ammo management are only similar up to a point. Stamina wasn't only removed for tedious management, but because an entirely upgraded/new system was in the works, and coptering had to go due to forcing everyone to equip certain weapons for mobility over actual preference.

Stamina and Parkour 2.0 feel closer to Universal Vacuum: there was no better way to get around outside of coptering (and a few 'frames like Nova, Volt, Zephyr), just as there was no better way to pick up loot than Carrier.

Ammo restores and weapons with poor efficiency already have a variety of mods to mitigate their shortcomings. We do have ways to make them viable, and we aren't forced to use a weapon variant of Tipedo/Carrier.

Those two former issues were not simply a minor annoyance as you, the OP, and many of us have called it. 

They warranted drastic changes in a way that I'm not yet convinced this does. But I've argued against Universal Vacuum before and been proven wrong. If the devs agree with this suggestion, so be it.

But I do not.

[lukinu_u]

Do that and everybody will spamm Synoid Gammacor with DPS build.

Seriously, it's a bad idea.

[(XBOX)YoungGunn82]

I have read through 8 pages of flame pitching his "infin ammo" idea...I still fail to understand the relevance or significants of this thread..Because simply we already have infinite ammo with ammo mutations and ammo restores. This thread is still completey non sensical. And should be locked. 

[KnightCole]

10 hours ago, (PS4)DesecratedFlame said:

I am pretty sure you can't buy more ammo with plat, which was my point.

It's not a poor solution though. I have proven that the current system is tedious. I have shown that my suggested solution would work. I have shown my solution fixes several issues, and I have shown that my solution does not introduce any new issues that are not already present because of TARs. And saying there is this other possible solution has no effect on the merits of this one. If you think another solution is more viable then make a thread about it, and we can debate it on its own merits too, but it has no effects on the merits of this one.

All you have said is that there might be another solutions or started to use an "appeal to popularity" fallacy. Wasn't it you who said we should be looking for a solution, not just arguing to win.  Because right now, it seems like you are just arguing to win and assuming you cannot possibly be wrong.

 

Whats tedious about using Parkour to loot ammo!?

 

If anything, the real solution would be the higher tier mobs getting less armor/health and not requiring some magic meta gun that kills entire rooms in 1 shot to even dent them.

 

Ive taken a Gas element Supra against infested, supposedly +75% effective, the mobs were like lvl 65 and I couldnt even scratch them.  TOok half like 20-30 bullets per mob.  Thats really what needs to change, "enemy scaling".  I take my Soma Prime with Radiation(+75% effective vs Grineer), and at about the 30 minute mark, Bombards and heavy Gunners start taking 30-40-50 rounds in the HEAD to kill, so 6.6x criticals with 350 base Radiation damage, along with headshots, they deal what? 2x damage!?  So bullets that deal 4000+ dmg need like 30-40 of em to drop 30 minute bombards...it gets a little much really quick. 

[Volinus7]

Infinite ammo

OP weapons will be less OP because of longer reloading time.

Automatic/continuous weapons will be viable at high lvl.

No more sniper ammo shared pool controversy.

Greedy pull wasted ammo box over 1 ammo? No more!

Corn Pizza confiscated D: [you should try Hawaiian pizza with pineapple instead]

Edited October 23, 2016 by Volinus7

[Tricky5hift]

Dude, if you're worried about ammo then just run Carrier with its new ammo pickup preset.

[(PSN)DesecratedFlame]

2 hours ago, Krion112 said:

If you waste your time hanging around one, that's on you. And, honestly, I don't have to waste my time on them, so why do you?

I stopped reading right there.  Dude, the only game types were ammo becomes a concern are endless missions, and they all involve being relatively stationary.

Survival? Best way to play it is camping in a sewer. Even if you don't camp, you stay pretty stationary because you hang out around the LS Pod until you need it because you don't want to waste it by activating it too soo.

Defense? Self-explanatory.

Excavation, you hang out around each individual extractor for long periods of time.

Interception, you hang out in point A, B, C, or D.

If you can't find time to use a restore then you are not even looking.

2 hours ago, Drasiel said:

Ammo already kind of does this in archwing. They seem to be balancing it based on ammo regeneration time instead of reload as there is no magazine. I think it would be cool to have this with certain weapons in normal warframe but certainly not all of them. 

I already said I was fine with that idea. Things like the Tonkor, Amprex, Simulor, having regening ammo, but long reload times. Hell, I would even be fine with them working the same way ammo in AW works.

36 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

So, yes, your explicitly stated point was you don't like tedium

Correct. I am saying the "scans" part was just for reference, not the disliking tedium part. Hence why buying Cat DNA is irrelevant to the conversation about Ammo because the concept doesn't carry between the two.

40 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

• I see the issue, but it's, as I've said over and over, a minor annoyance.
• It isn't a problem that needs a solution.

Exactly, you came into the argument already convinced you were correct on these points. Until you are at least willing to entertain the idea that it is, we will get no where.

44 minutes ago, Rhekemi said:

You know, I was probably very close to the truth when I said (in my first post here) that you debate from the standpoint that you believe you're always right

Pot, meet Kettle.

You have ignored my points just as much as you claim I have ignored yours. Rather than say why there idea is bad, you continue to try to deflect the conversation instead. Why is it bad? "It's not even an issue," "this other thing over here is better," etc.

The thing is, there has been exactly one so-called "flaming-loop," and I even made it orange for you.  If you could successfully jump through it then you would "win," which is clearly what you are trying to do here. Yet, you can't even look at it.

And yes, you are trying to win. Notice how you said I am arguing in such a way as to assume I can't possibly be wrong. Have you not even looked at your own arguments while thinking about that same phrase? Didn't you come into this thread to "destroy a ""bad"" argument," in your own words?

----------------------------

Honestly, there is no point in you continuing to argue at this point. We have gotten to the point where it is just opinion vs opinion, and your opinion is that there isn't even an issue to be argued about. So it really doesn't matter how long we go back and forth. No more progress will be made.

 

[(PSN)abbacephas]

13 minutes ago, Gelkor said:

Reducing visual clutter, freeing up processing power, less numbers on the HUD, less worrying about re-balancing old weapons that unfairly have smaller ammo pools, no longer gimping bows and other launchers because certain secondaries arbitrarily share their ammo pool. 

In short, it would make the game slightly cleaner and slightly faster paced. I don't personally see how that's a bad thing.

The thing is "slightly" is not equivalent to "significantly", which is what I was inquiring about. And just to be even clearer, when I speak about a significant difference, I'm speaking using the scientific definition of significant (ie. there is a statistically measurable change).