{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
4/12/2025 9:18:02 PM
5
We could use some other primary options tbh, we only have 7 total I think, no one wants a scout, auto, or pulse meta. So that leaves HCs for mid range, and someone is constantly complaining about those, same whenever SMGs are meta.
Honestly I think someone is gonna complain no matter what archetype is meta.
English
-
Well that's why the mid range meta was hated you had handcannons mapping players football fields away. Sorry but the AR meta was the best
-
Edited by Zodleon: 4/13/2025 1:24:06 PM🤷♂️ I'm a sidearm main, I don't care what meta we have myself, I'll keep using whatever I want. Besides that you missed the point, and went on anti handcannon propaganda? You're missing the mark here dude.
-
They will because when mid range weapons are meta, positioning and timing are more necessary, meaning that it benefits higher skilled players, and so, the less skilled players complain. Conversely, when rifles are meta, it lowers the skill ceiling, effectively leveling the playing field and the higher skilled players lose more than they are comfortable with. It’s not easy balance but in an ideal world, there wouldn’t be a defined meta and people could compete using the loadouts they are comfortable with.
-
Imo they can't be balanced simply because of the skill gap, the effectiveness of some guns varies wildly from skill bracket to skill bracket and you can't adjust it for all of them satisfactorily since it's an external factor. Nerfing one thing because of good players might kill it for bad players, while buffing a gun for bad players, making it usable for them, might make it absolutely busted for good ones.
-
“If you try to please everyone, you please no one.”
