JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

#feedback

11/11/2018 9:20:57 AM
9

Is The Queenbreaker Gambit meta worse than Sleeper Simulant?

At this point you’d have to think the issue isn’t Gambit, or ammo economy, or anything else, but rather linear fusions themselves. Sleeper killed on body shot. Queenbreaker damn near feels like it with that ridiculous level of AA on console. I have clips of enemy shots quite literally not hitting me, but still registering as a kill. Bungie that is not okay. 6 gambit matches in a row against stacks of 3 or 4 with dedicated QB users to wipe my entire team without doing much but pointing the gun at me. I like linear fusions, but QB has too much aim assist. And in the big picture Bungie can’t continue to band-aid overarching problems like a poor invasion system. It looks good on paper but when it comes down to it, one player has the capacity to see the enemies through walls, scope up with powerful heavy weapons, and kill them all, often without receiving a single counter shot. The range game in gambit promotes a sit in the back playstyle and it is awful. The premise of the game is to out-PVE a team of opposing guardians. Invasions are cool, but maybe you limit ammo selection and make the invader more of a juggernaut with primary weapons or something. As soon as everyone gets their malfeasance it’s over for this game mode unless something is done.

Publicando en idioma:

 

Pórtate bien. Echa un vistazo a nuestro Código de conducta antes de publicar tu mensaje. Cancelar Editar Crear escuadra Publicar

Ver el resto del tema
  • Editado por TotalDramaGamer: 11/12/2018 7:07:22 PM
    [quote]At this point you’d have to think the issue isn’t Gambit, or ammo economy, or anything else, but rather linear fusions themselves.[/quote] In the sense they're the most viable heavy or just in terms of invasions? I'm guessing the latter, which if so, then snipers kindly disagree. I will say that swords and greande launchers need some love in Gambit. They just don't get enough ammo per brick for what they can accomplish. Rockets are okay. Tracking needs to be fixed though (or at least better). Proximity rockets would also be a welcome addition to spice up the PvP side of heavies. -- Also, consider that almost everyone wants to run the EP shotty for PvE… So that's the special slot already gone. Everyone needs a primary... so that's gone too (no sniper for most people). So what to people use to counter invaders? Linears. It's 'like' a sniper but with a decent PvE application and generous ammo amounts per brick. Even if QB or Sleeper didn't exist... this circumstance alone is why you see a lot of linears. [quote]Sleeper killed on body shot. Queenbreaker damn near feels like it with that ridiculous level of AA on console. I have clips of enemy shots quite literally not hitting me, but still registering as a kill.[/quote] That would probably be lag. Granted, I agree, the lag in Gambit can be really bad. I find that 95% of the time a miss is a miss or a hit is a hit. Most linears have a lot of AA (other than sleeper) and D1 Queenbreaker's was exactly the same way (even had hidden hand as a perk). Strong AA is not anything new for the gun. [quote]Bungie that is not okay. 6 gambit matches in a row against stacks of 3 or 4 with dedicated QB users to wipe my entire team without doing much but pointing the gun at me. [/quote] All guns are just 'pointing a gun at you'... But, regardless, again use a sniper. Use your emote to peak around corners if you have a lot of motes. If you don't, then why hide. They can only spawn in two areas the first two times anyway. For the Primeval a good team only needs to kill 1-2 invaders and then they can burst the boss down with ease (usually just 1 invader). You'll always have a meta. If you're trying to find a magical 'no meta formula'... then sorry mate, but it's just not going to happen. There will always be comps of 'all this' or 'all that' in terms of weapons. It, by no means, makes them unbeatable though. [quote]It looks good on paper but when it comes down to it, one player has the capacity to see the enemies through walls, scope up with powerful heavy weapons, and kill them all, often without receiving a single counter shot. The range game in gambit promotes a sit in the back playstyle and it is awful. [/quote] That's more of an invader issue (you have) and not a gun issue. Again, a sniper can do the same thing (and that doesn't even need heavy). If you're not receiving a counter shot it's because the team was uncoordinated. A lot of teams are very good at grouping up (on certain maps) in safe areas. Others are really good at predicting spawns and have a sleeper pre-charged (or sniper/other linear ready) to merc you as you peak. [quote]The premise of the game is to out-PVE a team of opposing guardians.[/quote] The premise of the game is to out PvEvP a team of opposing guardians... if you're great at killing adds, but can't kill invaders, why should you still win to a team that can do both? You won't in Gambit. That's just how it is. And yes, there are plenty of teams (and individuals) that are great at killing invaders. [quote]Invasions are cool, but maybe you limit ammo selection and make the invader more of a juggernaut with primary weapons or something.[/quote] Why? So you can be killed by an endless number of pulses and Lunas in Gambit too alongside crucible? Embrace the heavy, use it against the invader, that's the point of the PvP side of Gambit. If you want primary fights we have the normal crucible for that. I think Heavy in Gambit should be more controlled though. It's very clear that sometimes NO heavy drops for one team, while the other gets 10 bricks spread across everyone. I say, that every 25 kills causes a heavy brick to spawn on the field for that person. Wall heavy returns to D1 standards (sharable) but only spawns once per round. That would give a decent amount around, while not piling it up to obscene amounts. I dunno though. Heavy is a tenuous system. [quote]As soon as everyone gets their malfeasance it’s over for this game mode unless something is done.[/quote] For some people, yes. Just like comp. for some people. I think there's quite a few people that really enjoy Gambit though (aside the technical issues and catch up mechanics in round 2). Although, I will still advocate, that Gambit really needs a solo que. A match consisting of all solos and a match between two 4 stacks are two very different expierences. Both have enjoyment, but solo shouldn't be shafted if that's how you want to play.

    Publicando en idioma:

     

    Pórtate bien. Echa un vistazo a nuestro Código de conducta antes de publicar tu mensaje. Cancelar Editar Crear escuadra Publicar

    1 Respuesta
    No se te permite acceder a este contenido.
    ;
    preload icon
    preload icon
    preload icon