Let's talk PvP Weapon Balance (Destiny)

by Kahzgul, Wednesday, June 22, 2016, 20:07 (3018 days ago) @ Ragashingo

I find your example amazingly silly. If you're struggling to kill someone with a primary and are so close to them that they can turn around and shotgun you in the face, well... that's on you. Worse is you not wanting to be killed when you "don't make a mistake." If you died and there wasn't cheating or lag involved then more than likely you did make a mistake. It kinda feels like you think you're entitled to win in all situations.

Why should it be a struggle though? I walk around a corner to see someone's back and in less time it would take me to melee them twice (because that's how close he is when I see him) he can turn around and shotgun me to death. Firing a primary is generally faster than the double melee, and even in that amount of time, he can turn and shotgun me to death. There shouldn't be a struggle there when you catch someone with their pants down. It should be three pulls of the trigger and you win. But because these guys can turn and kill you so quickly, you have to switch to a shotgun to guarantee that you get the kill. I understand how my one example can be taken to mean that I never get these kills. That's untrue. But I feel like it shouldn't even be a question, and certainly shouldn't be a 20-30% chance of the enemy getting the kill instead of me. Maybe the one amazing guy who can shadestep to the side and get me, or blink into the air or something, but doing a 180 and firing should not be faster than just firing.

Anyway, what's wrong with thinking that, if you full outmaneuver your opponent and catch them completely unawares, you should be able to easily get that kill? With a sniper or a shotgun, it's a kill 100% of the time. With a primary weapon, it's not, and that's because if they're using a sniper or shotgun they have a real chance of OHKing you even while already under fire. The gulf between primaries and secondaries is too big.

You have Radar. Don't blunder up close to someone. A special weapon, especially one meant specifically for very short range SHOULD be a very significant threat at very short range. I get that it's only one example, but it's a bad example.

I'm a big fan of increasing the difficulty of sniping under fire, but if you land four shots with a MIDA Multi-Tool and your enemy is still alive then you missed. As you put it, your one mistake was fatal. I also hate the god roll shotguns, but you make it sound like it's always impossible to kill someone before they shotgun you. Obviously, that's not the case.

My impression was MIDA was a 5-shot kill? Change my example to 3 shots then. Don't get hung up on the symantecs: The point is that a sniper under fire from a primary is not under duress and can still OHK you at least 30% of the time.

I agree that focusing on a specific example isn't fair. But, Snipers should win 70+% of the time when used within their proper range. It's situation like the snapshot kills when I come around a blind corner and get headshot while in the Shoulder Charge animation that I would want to see eliminated first. Then more bounce to push Sniper Rifles back to long range and out of medium range.

Then there's the situations you don't mention. Like when the Sniper misses multiple shots and dies without even damaging his target. Or where the shotgunner does fire outside of their one shot kill range and is finished off by a primary. Or they charge in only to be stuck by a grenade well beyond their optimal range. Comparing sloppy usage of primaries to perfect the usage of secondaries... and heavies... and Supers?! I like a lot of the ideas in the thread. Returning to the days of special and heavy ammo dropping from enemies under limited circumstances, for instance. But I also like the way Destiny currently plays for the most part and I don't find the arguments to boost primaries to be compelling.

This is all irrelevant because I'm actually comparing good use of primaries to good use of secondaries. Not sloppy vs. good. Not sloppy vs. sloppy. Good vs. good. Two good players, one with primary and one with secondary, and almost any range, is a fight grossly in favor of the guy with secondary ammo.

Part of the game is playing the ranges and angles. Blunder into the back of a guy with a shotgun? You deserve to die. Poke your head out into a sniper lane? Chances are you will die. I categorically disagree that a good player using a primary is always at a gross disadvantage. At certain ranges he is and should be. But it's his job to try and not be in those ranges... Or to use his own special when he is.

This really sounds like your whole argument to this point sounds like "well this scenario is clearly an idiot playing." Let's assume the player in question is not an idiot and is pretty good at the game; they just don't happen to have any special ammo at this exact moment. They have made the best of it and outmaneuvered an enemy player, catching them looking the wrong way.

If you're saying it's dumb to trick a shotgunner into facing left and only for you to attack him from the right, well, that should not be dumb. That is a tactical play which I would like to see rewarded more often. A good player with good positioning catching another good player off guard with poor positioning should win the 1v1, regardless of whether they're using a primary or special weapon. A great player should still be able to get away or turn the tables, but good v. good in that situation shouldn't be a question.

regardless of how it should be, if you don't have special ammo and your enemy does, *what do you do to fight back?* Do you just switch to invective or icebreaker because that's how broken the disparity between primary and special weapons is? Do you run away and hope your super or grenade comes back up before the other team finds you, again because you know primary weapons suck ballsack compared to special weapons? My point is that the disparity should not be so big that the best strategy is never to engage, even when you have the drop on the enemy. Right now, I'd say about 25% of the time I get the drop on someone they still kill me if they have secondary and I have primary. I feel like that number is too high. I think they should maybe be able to escape 25% of the time, but not fully turn the tables with a OHK.

On the flip side, I should not be able to just stand there with impunity when i have a sniper rifle with ammunition. I should have to worry about my flanks and my backside and other avenues of approach, even when I know the enemy is out of special ammo. But right now I don't have to. They can't kill me with primary ammo before I can either kill them or escape.

My big worry is that under your plan every weapon will kill me in an instant no matter the range, instead of just some of them and only within limited ranges. Maybe some people would like that, but to me it would be absolute hell and force me out of PvP...

This makes sense to me, but you'll notice I'm not really suggesting changing damage values so much as I'm suggesting making secondaries a little more cumbersome to use (but easier to find ammo for), and rewarding people with primaries who kill people using secondaries or heavies. I'm not trying to turn the game into hardcore CoD, but rather to bring the game closer to the Y1 primary vs. secondary matchups instead of the current state.

I agree with those two things. More special ammo. Harder to use specials. But I also don't think the problem is a huge as some are making it out to be.

It's a bigger problem now than it was during year 1. It's also big enough that I notice it when I play and I think there's room for improvement. It's not game breaking, but it is frustrating.