{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
10/16/2024 6:35:58 PM
9
I think Oscillation largely falls down due to its [b]specificity[/b].
Having two small sets of weapons types (Scouts, Pulses and GLs vs SMGs and Shotguns) that play off of each other with this Modifier while leaving every other Primary and Special ammo weapon with a damage penalty (luckily Heavy weapons are exempt from this mechanic) makes Oscillation far too restrictive in my opinion.
I feel they could improve the Modifier greatly by simplifying it to “Dealing damage with [b]Kinetic Slot weapons[/b] gradually reduces their damage while increasing the damage of [b]Energy Slot weapons[/b], and vice versa”.
And if the devs feel that [i]some[/i] level of restriction on loadouts is absolutely necessary to the identity of the modifier then I believe something like “Dealing damage with [b]Primary ammo weapons[/b] gradually reduces their damage while increasing the damage of [b]Special ammo weapons[/b], and vice versa” would be a more palatable version than the Modifier as it currently exists.
(΄◉◞౪◟◉｀)
English
-
This sounds like its making me think about running gunning and wither hording since its one of the few things/time where I would switch weapons back and forth.
-
This. Great constructive feedback! The modifiers need tweaks, but they were just now implemented. We need to play with them and offer solutions instead of just complaining and trashing them all together.
-
You do realise nobody likes this game mode don’t you
-
Meh. Strikes are consistently one of the most played (if not the most played) activity at any one point of time…. Higher end players only really enjoy GMs, but they must be at least a bit entertaining for more casual players I can appreciate Bungie [u]trying[/u] to spice them up for us with new modifiers. Ones that are being tested on the player base now. Not all of them are winners in their current state tho
-
It would be interesting to see the drop in player base for strikes and the rise in other activities I did everything in the night falls
-
No, we don't need to offer solutions to bad ideas.
-
True, but you also need to explain the WHYs otherwise the feedback is worthless. Just crapping on it and telling them it’s bad tells them there’s something they need to fix, but they might make it worse. It’s not on us to do their job for them, but it’s good to give them a direction to work in if you actually want the game to improve.
-
Editado por SaintX: 10/17/2024 8:32:54 PM[quote]True, but you also need to explain the WHYs otherwise the feedback is worthless. Just crapping on it and telling them it’s bad tells them there’s something they need to fix, but they might make it worse. It’s not on us to do their job for them, but it’s good to give them a direction to work in if you actually want the game to improve.[/quote] It's bad, like just bad, nothing good about it. That's the feedback, just bad, the solution remove it, it's there game they should have a direction, if the player needs to point the dev in the direction to take the game, probably should stop making games if you can't even figure out the direction you want it to go.
-
Editado por Ulzana: 10/17/2024 12:12:12 AMI don't know when this concept took hold, it's recent. But no, you don't necessarily need to offer solutions to those that provide bad products. Professionals should know how to fix their own mistakes. Nothing wrong with offering solutions, of course. But it's not a requirement for constructive criticism. In fact, based on responses I've seen from some devs, many resent gamers offering solutions on game development.
