It is 100% not an indirect buff to primaries . It just forces their use, regardless of how powerful or weak they may be. It just slows the game down and quite frankly removes variety and outplayability from engagements. Crates were the worst thing to happen to D1. Game was slow. Engagements were predictable. Variety tanked. Option 2 in my post [i]provides incentive[/i] to use primaries, rather than forcing it, and limits the special ammo that people [i]earn[/i]. You won't be able to go on special-only streaks unless you don't ever miss a shot, but at that point you've earned it. Option 2 is an [i]actual[/i] buff to primaries. It makes primaries drop more special ammo on a kill. None of this "Oh. Primaries are considered good now because they're the only gun you can use for 75% of the game."

If you have to be incentivised to use a primary, it isn't a primary. Special ammo is supposed to be special, not used as a primary substitute. Crates is the better solution.

In CoD (the ones I played) the incentive to use a primary is its lethality and ability to counter OHK weapons. The primaries are also more universal than the OHK weapons, which have a specific purpose. Same with Battlefield. Same with Halo. The list goes on. Every decent single shooter in existence that has OHK weapons has an incentive in place to use a primary. Every. Single. One. If OHK weapons exist, there has to be reasons to not use them, rather than "Oh. Looks like I'm outta ammo for the next 5 minutes." But enough of that. Are you actually going to use any logic or reasoning to defend your stance or are ya just gonna go "Primaries shouldn't be common. Crates better." and expect that to work? Just gonna ignore all the downsides to crates I mentioned just because it doesn't work with your narrative? Cause if so this conversation ain't going anywhere.

I did use logic. And cod has a far faster ttk than d2. Bad argument.

You used zero logic. And no. I said CoD weapons had more lethality than D2. That faster TTK is the incentive to use them over OHK weapons. I'm starting to wonder if you can read.

If you can't comprehend special weapons should be less common than primaries based on the connotation of the words I question your intelligence and have no desire to try and make a point to you. Because that is the logic i used.

Aaaaand both my suggestions make special weapons less common than primaries. See that? Or have you not even thought that far ahead? So [i]why[/i] are crates better than my solutions when my solutions do the same thing without any of the downsides of crates? You haven't addressed that at all.

What are these downsides to crates then?

Well I listed three of them above, but I'll add more. They: 1. Slow the game down [i]significantly[/i]; 2. Limit variety (Special ammo tied to a clock rather than performance means the better specials become more and more important. Then things like sidearms that occupy shotgun range, kill very quickly and easily, but use ammo that isn't tied to a clock become the new go-to. I can guarentee you that with sidearms as they are now, crates will bring a sidearm meta that instant.); 3. Make engagments even more predictable for half the match, because people don't have ammo; 4. Removes any bit of outplayability or unique playstyles that specials bring for the majority of the match; 5. Penalizes players who actually use their special and primary weapons together, rather than rely on the special; and 6. Doesn't address that balance between primary and special at all. Some primaries just don't kill consistently enough to counter specials. Putting in crates doesn't fix that. It just takes that crap and puts it in certain points of the match where there's ammo. It is a bandaid fix at best.

[quote]Well I listed three of them above, but I'll add more. They: 1. Slow the game down [i]significantly[/i]; 2. Limit variety (Special ammo tied to a clock rather than performance means the better specials become more and more important. Then things like sidearms that occupy shotgun range, kill very quickly and easily, but use ammo that isn't tied to a clock become the new go-to. I can guarentee you that with sidearms as they are now, crates will bring a sidearm meta that instant.); 3. Make engagments even more predictable for half the match, because people don't have ammo; 4. Removes any bit of outplayability or unique playstyles that specials bring for the majority of the match; 5. Penalizes players who actually use their special and primary weapons together, rather than rely on the special; and 6. Doesn't address that balance between primary and special at all. Some primaries just don't kill consistently enough to counter specials. Putting in crates doesn't fix that. It just takes that crap and puts it in certain points of the match where there's ammo. It is a bandaid fix at best.[/quote] 1. The fast gameplay is why primaries don't stand a chance against specials, because primaries don't kill fast enough. 2. That's the point of special weapons, to be limited that's why they're called [i]special[/i] weapons. I can tell you right now even with crates a slide shotgun would beat a sidearm 10/10. 3 and 4 contradict each other. If your enemy is predictable, you can outplay them, which means you aren't predictable as you didn't get outplayed by your enemy. 5. Hurts who? Grenade launcher users? If they're good with a launcher it won't hurt them at all. 6. It does address the balance. The average ttk for primaries is like .8 seconds. You can only buff primaries so much because of their rates of fire, before all primaries are one shot weapons. If you want strong specials you have to limit their use. Ammo doesn't need to be lost on death, but it has to be limited. Otherwise the only balance is to nerf specials into the ground. And with crates, a special weapon skill gap is introduced. Limited ammo means you have to make the best use of it, and not take any low risk shots because there's ammo readily available. Players who properly balance their weapon use will find themselves having ammo for the entire match. If you intend to use a special weapon as a primary, which is not what it's for, you will have no ammo at some point during a match.

It is abundantly clear you don't know how to use a sidearm, so I'll just stop on that one. A shotgunner isn't beating a competent sidearm user 10/10 times. Just isn't. Pick up a Drang and put some time behind it. I have over 1000 kills on 18 Kevins thanks to shotgunners, and I haven't even used it in a year. That was before the sidearm buffs. 3 and 4 don't contradict each other. You misunderstand. 3 is a problem because 4 exists. An enemy who is locked to only a primary is much more predictable than one who isn't. There is still [i]some[/i] outplayability, but it is limited in comparison to when specials are on board. And it hurts people who use their special and primary together to create a unique playstyle. Their playstyle will be limited to ammo. This includes all specials. Those charged with light builds that use specials? Pretty much a waste. Someome who likes to be aggressive and precise with a slug shotty and an HC? Constantly invisible on Wraith? Yeah. Just put a huge amount of synergy on a time limit.

[quote]It is abundantly clear you don't know how to use a sidearm, so I'll just stop on that one. A shotgunner isn't beating a competent sidearm user 10/10 times. Just isn't. Pick up a Drang and put some time behind it. I have over 1000 kills on 18 Kevins thanks to shotgunners, and I haven't even used it in a year. That was before the sidearm buffs. 3 and 4 don't contradict each other. You misunderstand. 3 is a problem because 4 exists. An enemy who is locked to only a primary is much more predictable than one who isn't. There is still [i]some[/i] outplayability, but it is limited in comparison to when specials are on board. And it hurts people who use their special and primary together to create a unique playstyle. Their playstyle will be limited to ammo. This includes all specials. Those charged with light builds that use specials? Pretty much a waste. Someome who likes to be aggressive and precise with a slug shotty and an HC? Constantly invisible on Wraith? Yeah. Just put a huge amount of synergy on a time limit.[/quote] And a sidearm user isn't beating a competent shotgun user. Your points 3 and 4 do contradict each other and i explained it. If you are predictable, you can be outplayed. If you are outplayed, you didn't predict your enemy. If you have no ammo, it's your own fault. You used it as a primary killer and can't use it as a special killer. And those builds aren't on a time limit, they are limited by your ammo use. Don't lead with a slug shotgun (special) when you can use a hand cannon (primary). If you burn all your special first when you didn't need to, you can wait for an ammo crate. Primaries don't need to be incentivised, special weapons need drawbacks, in the form of less ammo.

And? They aren't going to beat them 10/10 times. But guess what? A sidearms user with 200 rounds will probably beat a shotgun user with only one. Shotguns are inconsistent by nature in this game. Good ol' RNG in every shot. A sidarms user is going to win that 7/10 times with some practice [i]at least[/i]. And you're still missing the point of 3 and 4. You're interpreting it [i]all[/i] outplayability is taken away. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying the amount of outplayability and unpredictability that [i]specials[/i] provide will be gone for a large portion of the match. What primaries contribute to that will still be there. They do not contradict at all. I never said crates somehow make it to where people [i]can't[/i] be outplayed, like how you're interpreting it. They can be, but for large portions of the match you'll be reading [i]only[/i] a primary and reacting with [i]only[/i] a primary, rather than thinking about their special, it's range, how they could use it, etc. And it does ruin build synergy. What if that guy leads with an HC, gets a precision kill, goes invidisible, gets another, and then gets pushed by a sidearm? Whereas he'd normally have a slug, now he doesn't. Match may have just started. Maybe his team got supered off the crate? Maybe his teammates grabbed all the crates before he could get there? Doesn't matter. Things happened outside of his control so now he has to die? He'd be much better off just not using the shotgun at all. You're looking at everything as if it's in black and white and it just isn't. Putting a time limit on special while that many variables are in place is ridiculous. Solutiom 2 I presented LIMITS THE SPECIAL AMMO ECONOMY without all of that BS. Want ammo? Earn it. If you rely on your special only, the moment you miss once your ammo is gone entirely. And you say you want the drawback to be ammo? Great. SOLUTION 2 I PRESENTED DOES THAT. What's wrong with that at all? Special streaks end. Primary play goes up. No artificial time limits. Integrity of builds is intact. Unpredictability and outplayability are as high as they can be at all times, rather than having highs and lows. I'm having trouble finding a single downside to option 2, and you have yet to present one.

Your downside is you're still treating special weapons as primaries, which they aren't and have no right to be.

That's not true at all. It's limiting their ammo, as YOU WANT, but determining that limit from the performance of the player, rather than an arbitrary time limit. No primary weapon at all in the entire game is subject to that limitation. None. Zero. Your arguement had might as well be "It isn't what I want so it is bad." if that's all you can come up with.

It's a primary weapon dipshit. Ammo is supposed to be plentiful. Ammo is not supposed to be plentiful for special weapons, that's why they are [i]special[/i]. You don't seem to understand that.

I understand that 100%. I'm literally saying that Solution 2 makes special ammo NOT PLENTIFUL. You will literally never have a stockpile of ammo unless you're on a primary weapon kill streak. Under solution 2, the only way ammo would be plentiful is if you are using it wisely, JUST LIKE CRATES. You are not understanding that. Only difference is mine isn't on an arbitrary time limit that makes variety, builds, and many more aspects of the game suffer as a result.

One second thought, your idea actually encourages low risk special weapon use because if miss or get a hit with your special and clean up with a primary, you have a net gain in special ammo as opposed to gaining none at all. Now it's an even worse idea. Looks like crates are still better.

Finally [i]somewhat[/i] of a logical thought. But, you get two shots to drop in that case for a net gain of one, which is equivalent to what you get now. So no worse than it is currently. But if that's such a big deal, the system could [i]easily[/i] determine if whether or not your special weapon assisted in that kill. If it did, only one shot drops, assuming the guy you killed had some, for a net gain of 0. But at the same time, this system is higher risk than it is now. Simply because if you miss your special shot, you can't follow up. You have to swap to a primary, and if you don't get the primary defeat (maybe a teamate does or something), then you are out of ammo entirely. Shot wasted. Also, ONE drawback that took you forever to realize and is [i]easily[/i] addressed somehow outweighs the multitude of drawbacks of crates? Please. Little to no logic there at all.

If the net gain is zero your "solution" solves nothing and ammo remains the same as it is now. And your third paragraph is how the economy works now, so you "solution" still changes nothing. Crates actually reduce the amount of ammo which is what is needed. And crates actually prevent specials from being used as primaries.

The third paragraph and now are not the same. Now, if you miss, you have at least one more shot. Each kill drops 2 shots if you have a scavenger mod. Right now, each kill with a special weapon is a net gain of 1 if you get the OHK, and you break even if it takes 2 shots. In my system, a miss means you have zero shots left, unless you stocked ammo from primary kills. So considering the limits to get ammo, the fact that it drops only for the person who got the kill, and the fact that double primary users wouldn't make special drop as a result, the amount of special usage in the game at any point would be lower than it is now. That's just a mathematical fact. Players could only gain special if they didn't use it, and would break even [i]at best[/i] if they rely on it. That's entirely different than it is now. Right now you can use your special only and gain ammo the entire time. That would be impossible in my system.

You said a primary kill gets you 2 special ammo. That means at any time you can be getting more special kills than primary kills. That's the opposite of limiting special use. The reward for using a special weapon well is a quick kill in the slower ttk game. You shouldn't be rewarded for using specials otherwise.

This. Just make it work like it does right now in D1. You have to get your green bricks from crates, you don't respawn with that type of ammo and lose it if you pick up green brick ammo then die.