People are taking the Gjallarhorn nerf WAY too seriously.

[Note: I'm editing my initial post to make things easier to read while including more detailed explanations.] 1) Opening Rant... [spoiler]Ok, I was content to laugh at people being all 'doom and gloom' this morning, but I need to say something here. People, you need a sense of perspective and you need it badly. It's a video game, that's it. I've seen every manner of complaint and petition this morning, even one dude going so far as to start a petition on the White House website to stop the nerf. Seriously? The point was to bring Gjallarhorn back to earth a bit and allow other heavy weapons to become more viable. Let's be honest, Gjallarhorn has become an elitist symbol for many people and that's just ridiculous. Not a single person on this game [i]earned[/i] their Gjallarhorn and to exclude others because they didn't have the same [i]random-ass luck[/i] as you did is offensive. Those of you now assuming it's going to swing the other way and make people MORE elitist are the problem here, not this nerf. Point blank, if you need a full fireteam of Gjallarhorns for ANY of the end game content on Destiny, you're not very good at this game. Atheon?: He's actually easier to kill with high impact snipers or heavy machine guns because Gjallarhorns or other rocket launchers usually cause him to move. Crota?: As a 34, two Gjallarhorn shots bring Crota down. That's ONE PERSON with a Gjallarhorn in your fireteam and you're good. Now that means you need two...damn, that's rough. How will you ever cope? Skolas?: Gjallarhorns don't matter for Skolas, teamwork and communication do. Each and every time I've beaten Skolas (usually once a week since HoW hit) I've done it with 2 fireteam members having Gjallarhorn. It was only this past week that I had a full fireteam with 3 Gjallarhorns and it wasn't much easier anyway. And for the record, I have a Gjallarhorn on each character (sharded 5 more) and I love it, but I'm not losing my mind over something as dumb as this. If this nerf bothers you that much that you'd try to get a White House petition going to stop it, you need to take a step back and reevaluate your life. Seriously.[/spoiler] 2) Reasons for the nerf(s)... First let me say that I don't necessarily agree with Bungie's nerfs, but I am attempting to explain why I think that [i]they think the nerfs are necessary[/i]. a) General weapon balance: [spoiler]I feel like Bungie has a baseline that they're trying to keep all guns within a certain distance of as far as relative power level goes, with weapons increasing in power level by rarity. With TTK right around the corner, and with it a light level increase for us that will render Skolas an easy foe, I feel like Bungie is trying to reset their baseline in prep for Year 2. Gjallarhorn was too far above the baseline (as were Ice Breaker, Black Hammer, and exotic hand cannons) so it's been toned down a bit. Auto rifles were a bit too far under the baseline (as were Hard Light and Necrochasm) so they've been pumped up a bit. All in all, I feel like the weapons are being balanced [i]with each other[/i] in order to restore what Bungie wants as the baseline for all the Year 2 content. I don't necessarily agree with their tactics, I'm just trying to make an educated guess as to their motivations for the changes.[/spoiler] b) LFG exclusivity: [spoiler]I think this one is easy to recognize, and I agree with Bungie on this part. A gun that is given as a random reward should not be a status symbol used to divide people. Despite all the arguments that have been given, I'm going to stick to my guns on this statement...it is IMPOSSIBLE to EARN a Gjallarhorn. In order to really earn it, there would have to be a specific in-game action or bounty that would ALWAYS result in a Gjallarhorn as a specific reward. That simply does not exist. Through raids, nightfalls, Trials, and so on, we can earn exotic CHANCES, but those are basically like raffle tickets: you don't always win what you want. Now you can certainly increase your odds in being randomly rewarded with a Gjallarhorn by doing more endgame activities, but there is still no way to actually EARN a Gjallarhorn, hence the reason that it is unfair to use it as a status symbol or as a condition of entry into groups. I know that Bungie has stated that they want us to form our own groups and, therefore, did not put in-game matchmaking for endgame activities in Destiny. I'm also aware that some people believe that in-game matchmaking would solve this issue, but I disagree. The same Gjallarhorn elitism exists on the Bungie forums to a degree, and would exist in an in-game matchmaking system unless it was a forced match system like on Weekly Heroics (and I don't think players want that type of system for raid recruiting). It's not the LFG system or lack thereof that's the problem, it's the attitude of some of the users that's the problem. I think that Bungie is within their rights to use that as a partial justification for this specific nerf.[/spoiler] c) Usage statistics and in-game behaviors: [spoiler]As the game developers, Bungie has a vested interest in ensuring the game plays out like they've envisioned. When that doesn't happen, it motivates them to make adjustments. Gjallarhorn, Ice Breaker, and Black Hammer are all really powerful weapons that are very heavily used and can be used to deviate from the designed game mechanics. As far as I can see, it's no coincidence that they were all affected by the upcoming nerfs. When "melt his face with Gally in 15 seconds!" or "37 consecutive critical hits on [insert strike boss name here] with Black Hammer for the win!" or "they can't see me from here, I'll just sit back with my endless Ice Breaker ammo and snipe until everything is dead!" replace actually engaging the enemy or other game mechanics, Bungie considers that a problem. And let us be honest with one another...those weapons are often times used as a crutch even when they're not necessary. Imagine that Bungie was a swordsmith that you've contracted to make you a sword so that you can sword fight that Crota guy to the death for constantly pointing at you. Bungie puts their blood, sweat, and tears into that sword, but when the time for the duel rolls around, you just rocket the dude instead. They would most likely feel let down, that all their work was for nothing. See where in headed with this one? I'm not necessarily implying that Bungie's feelings are hurt, just that they see weapons being used for crutches to avoid difficulty as a problem and that's just not the way they intended their game to be played. Hence the nerf to those the specific weapons.[/spoiler] d) TTK incoming: [spoiler]Bungie isn't dumb. They know that we would all fight tooth and nail to keep using our Gjallarhorn or Fatebringer, and so on. They also, I'm assuming, know that they would completely lose most of their player base if they just arbitrarily took them away. So instead, they weaken Year 1 weapons, especially the OP exotics, to pave the way for Year 2 gear. Seems to be a not-so-clever marketing move on Bungie's part, wouldn't you say?[/spoiler] Again, I do not necessarily agree with all those reasons, I'm just trying to explain what I believe Bungie's reasons to be. 3) Common arguments that I DISAGREE with... a) The Gjallarhorn nerf will ruin the gun: [spoiler]This is probably the most frustrating argument against the nerf. We're not talking anything major here. If we go by the other nerfs in the upcoming rebalance, we're probably looking at a 20 to 30% reduction in Wolfpack round damage with a slight increase in blast radius of the initial rocket. Let me show you what I mean by using some basic math. I will not be using exact numbers because, honestly, I don't know them, but the numbers I'm using are pretty widely accepted. For our argument, let's say that currently, Gjallarhorn + Wolfpack rounds is the equivalent of two regular rockets-worth of damage, or 200% regular rocket damage. Meaning, assuming you have the heavy ammo boost on your boots, each clip of 7 Gjallarhorn rockets is the equivalent of 14 regular rockets. -If Wolfpack round damage is reduced by 20%, each shot from a Gjallarhorn will be equivalent to 1.8 regular rockets or 180% of regular rocket damage. A whole clip of 7 would then be the equivalent of 12.6 regular rockets. Meaning that over 1 clip, you'd do roughly the same damage as 6.3 current Gjallarhorn shots...less than 1 round of difference. Not to mention, if the initial blast from rockets are increased by 5% (estimate), then you'd do roughly the same damage as 6.45 current Gjallarhorn shots. -Same math, this time with a 30% reduction to the damage from Wolfpack rounds. Each Gjallarhorn shot is 1.7 regular rockets or 170% of regular rocket damage. A whole clip is then the equivalent of 11.9 regular rockets. Meaning that over 1 clip of 7, you'd do the same damage as 5.95 current Gjallarhorn shots or 6.1 current Gjallarhorn shots with the extra blast radius. So based on simple math and educated guesses, we can assume that we'll lose 1 regular Gjallarhorn shot worth of damage per clip. That's it. Considering that current endgame content isn't super challenging, and with our light level increase from TTK, even Skolas will be pretty simple. Nothing to get worked up about as far as I'm concerned. (Again, my math is hypothetical, but I believe it to be a safe assumption. This point might change a bit once actual percentages are released.)[/spoiler] Deep breath, Guardians, it's gonna be ok.

English

#Destiny

Revision
Date Edited
Edited By
Subject
Link
Category
Flags
Subject
Body

Revision
Date Edited
Edited By
Subject
Link
Category
Flags
Subject
Body

Revision
Date Edited
Edited By
Subject
Link
Category
Flags
Subject
Body

Revision
Date Edited
Edited By
Subject
Link
Category
Flags
Subject
Body

Destiny

Forum Search

Posted by

Topic Type

Category

Posted Date

People are taking the Gjallarhorn nerf WAY too seriously.

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History

Post History