{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/14/2014 1:53:29 PM
4
They can't.
That would require them to write in several formulas that essentially do the same thing but with minor variances.
That's too easy for a system to get confused and start bugging out.
Why break the Bekenstein LImit when you have one formula for everything which creates a smooth and more polished experience so you're not putting out fires every second of the day when the system gets its data wires crossed?
English
-
Many games do this for their pvp and pve content, if they are good developers it wouldn't break anything, and polished? When you nerf a weapon in pvp that nerfs it as well in pve making it harder especially when dropoff damage for something that you had to be in an enemies face in the first place is lowered even more. That is not smooth. Also nerfing auto rifles damage and increasing recoil, considering that 99% of people in end game content use auto rifles cause everything else sucks, why not make other weapons better instead of nerfing something that in PVE didn't need to be nerfed especially when it takes forever to kill things in the raid already. Buff the weaker weapons use the auto rifle as your goal, and make every other weapon as good as that one so all weapons are in balance with each other so people can choose what to use.
-
The trend here is that you're not thinking creatively. Think. Why do people use the Auto Rifles? Because the Auto Rifles were designed to dominate at close to mid-ranges. 7/9 maps I have played are CQB. They have tight corridors,,sharp corners, and small doors. You want to win you use the right tools for the right job. Why use a chainsaw when you need a hammer? The situation dictates the tools necessary to get the job done. People are complaining about "fair play" because they want to use weapons that are effective is other areas besides CQB. They don't want to play in maps where only one weapon type is needed to clean house because ALL the maps cater to the weapon type. I love CQB. I love the thrill of being in something's face and I'm comfortable with it. When I build a CQB character, I'll build it with a CQB loadout. I have sniping loadouts because there are days where I feel like I don't want the pressure of taking fire from 38 directions at once with no cover. I like to stay back, take my time, pick things off and then move in to finish who's left after I even the odds from an unfair vantage point. Here's what I'm seeing. Your OP states you want the two game modes to use different rules. Play different games. But your above counter argument to my post is that every weapon must be the same. Every weapon must be a clone copy with no differences and variances. They must be equally effective at everything with no weapon given the edge in a specific situation. Separate but equal. You don't win a war by playing fair. You create situations that give you the advantage so you win. If that means you get caught flatfooted, then you're at the mercy of the guy who prepared for this situation.
-
That was the most elaborate way of saying "git gud" Bravo sir.
-
No, I don't want them to all be the same...If you actually read what I said, I want them to all be viable options, so that you can use what you want. If you want to use the shotgun in pvp go for it the damage is a set, and you don't have people with lightswitch or burns or have crazy amounts of shields and other things like in pve, which killing a normal enemy with a shotgun wasn't to bad but if you want to go against a guy with a shield or something else you are probably going to die since the drop off is 20% more now. There are different rules for enemies in pve vs players in pvp so why shouldn't the guns follow that same pattern.
