The problem here is that your argument is that you have out maneuvered them, but you are still using a primary in shotgun range. Which means no, you didn't. It is an option not to engage the target. Or to wait for hem to get a little farther away or to backpedal as you engage. Your example is an example of blundering into a combat situation you are not positioned for.

By design you are supposed to have time to react to being engaged, unless it is by overwhelming force. And you should lost to a special weapon when you are within their optimum effective range band.

I'm totally for making special weapons more skill based, but for a shotgun it's all movement and positioning. And if turning around is all it takes to have the upper hand...

No, no. I'm specifically trying to use an example where you're not in shotgun OHK range. The shotgunner is still able to turn and close the gap and kill you all before you get him with your hand cannon. Or the sniper is able to turn and headshot you even though you're really close to him. The point is that being outside "optimal" special weapon range is not always enough to actually prevent being killed by them, even when you have the element of surprise on your side.

Maybe making backpedaling while ADSing faster would be enough to solve the issue as far as shotguns go, but it wouldn't resolve snipers.

Anyway, it's not all the time that this happens, just a sizeable percentage (in my experience, around 25% of the time, which I find unacceptably high). I think that it's just illustrative of the power gap between primary and secondary weapons, and I think the "fix" that bungie made to limit secondary ammo is a poor fix which has created more problems than it solved while simultaneously making crucible less fun to play and less competitive once one team establishes secondary ammo control on a map.

An enemy with his back to you should never be an unfavorable encounter.

What if the enemy

- Has a sword and uses it to attack behind them?
- Is in the middle of Arc Blade, or uses the area of effect of Hammer of Sol, Nova Bomb, or Fist of Havoc, or the chaining of Stormtrance to strike behind them?

Just being behind someone does not guarantee that you will win.

Okay, I'll grant those two, but again you seem to be really going out of your way to ignore the point I'm trying to make. Here is my more semantically accurate statement:

An enemy without heavy ammo or an active super with his back to you who is also inside the optimal zone of engagement for your primary weapon should never be an unfavorable encounter for you, even if he has special ammo, assuming that you are both of equal skill and have full health and shields with no other players in a position to intervene in the 1v1 engagement which you are initiating, even when your own grenade and melee ability are on cooldown, you have no super, and your only available weapon is a primary weapon (which is, itself, one of the top tier primaries and not some crap green you equipped because your name is Ragashingo and you're intentionally sabotaging the discussion).

I hope that covers it.

lol - I'll concede that in those circumstances, reality (as Bungie has defined it) is not as good as it should be.

And for the 2 encounters a month I experience where all of those conditions are met, I'll tip my hat to Kahzgul and shout "dammit, Bungie, I should have won that!"

:D

I'm also trying to be really clear than 75% of the time I do win these encounters, but that 25% failure rate feels far too high for me.

By design you are supposed to have time to react to being engaged, unless it is by overwhelming force. And you should lost to a special weapon when you are within their optimum effective range band.

I'm totally for making special weapons more skill based, but for a shotgun it's all movement and positioning. And if turning around is all it takes to have the upper hand...

An enemy with his back to you should never be an unfavorable encounter.

What if the enemy

- Has a sword and uses it to attack behind them?
- Is in the middle of Arc Blade, or uses the area of effect of Hammer of Sol, Nova Bomb, or Fist of Havoc, or the chaining of Stormtrance to strike behind them?

Just being behind someone does not guarantee that you will win.

Okay, I'll grant those two, but again you seem to be really going out of your way to ignore the point I'm trying to make. Here is my more semantically accurate statement:

An enemy without heavy ammo or an active super with his back to you who is also inside the optimal zone of engagement for your primary weapon should never be an unfavorable encounter for you, even if he has special ammo, assuming that you are both of equal skill and have full health and shields with no other players in a position to intervene in the 1v1 engagement which you are initiating, even when your own grenade and melee ability are on cooldown, you have no super, and your only available weapon is a primary weapon (which is, itself, one of the top tier primaries and not some crap green you equipped because your name is Ragashingo and you're intentionally sabotaging the discussion).

I hope that covers it.

lol - I'll concede that in those circumstances, reality (as Bungie has defined it) is not as good as it should be.

And for the 2 encounters a month I experience where all of those conditions are met, I'll tip my hat to Kahzgul and shout "dammit, Bungie, I should have won that!"

An enemy with his back to you should never be an unfavorable encounter.

What if the enemy

- Has a sword and uses it to attack behind them?
- Is in the middle of Arc Blade, or uses the area of effect of Hammer of Sol, Nova Bomb, or Fist of Havoc, or the chaining of Stormtrance to strike behind them?

Just being behind someone does not guarantee that you will win.

Okay, I'll grant those two, but again you seem to be really going out of your way to ignore the point I'm trying to make. Here is my more semantically accurate statement:

An enemy without heavy ammo or an active super with his back to you who is also inside the optimal zone of engagement for your primary weapon should never be an unfavorable encounter for you, even if he has special ammo, assuming that you are both of equal skill and have full health and shields with no other players in a position to intervene in the 1v1 engagement which you are initiating, even when your own grenade and melee ability are on cooldown, you have no super, and your only available weapon is a primary weapon (which is, itself, one of the top tier primaries and not some crap green you equipped because your name is Ragashingo and you're intentionally sabotaging the discussion).

I hope that covers it.

An enemy with his back to you should never be an unfavorable encounter.

What if the enemy

- Has a sword and uses it to attack behind them?
- Is in the middle of Arc Blade, or uses the area of effect of Hammer of Sol, Nova Bomb, or Fist of Havoc, or the chaining of Stormtrance to strike behind them?

Just being behind someone does not guarantee that you will win.

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.

I don't believe the weapon balance is anywhere near as broken as you do. Do I think there problems? Sure. Sucks ballsack level problems? Absolutely not. Because of this, I'm unable to agree that someone who attempts to fight within shotgun range when they have no special ammo has outmaneuvered their enemy. They may be a good player, but in that encounter they made a serious tactical mistake and rightly paid the price for it. (Happens to me all the time!)

...if you don't have special ammo and your enemy does, *what do you do to fight back?* ...Do you run away and hope your super or grenade comes back up before the other team finds you...

Absolutely! I'm at the top of my games and the Crucible is far less frustrating for me when I allow myself to disengage from unfavorable encounters.

An enemy with his back to you should never be an unfavorable encounter.

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.

I understand that you'd like to be able to kill an unaware opponent with primary before they can turn around and shotgun you - but why limit yourself to one way of killing, and then complain about that?

The point. The ENTIRE point. Is that catching someone totally unawares, even if all of your special and heavy ammo is gone, and your melee and grenade are both on cooldown, should STILL be enough of an opportunity to get a kill that the smart play is to go for the kill and not to say "fuck it" and run away whenever your skills are on cooldown and you don't have special ammo. The game should be designed in such a way that the optimal way to play PvP is for full health characters to seek out combat rather than flee from it.

If I come around a corner and see someone's back, maybe I'll stick them and turn around. Maybe I'll take two shots with my primary as I run to them for a punch to finish the job. There are plenty of options that DON'T require me to go straight up primary vs secondary... and that's good, because primary SHOULDN'T beat secondary, unless 1) you're good, 2) they're bad, or 3) you're lucky.

You can't stick when your grenade is on cooldown

If you take two shots with primary and run up to melee you're dead by shotgun 25% of the time in my scenario.

I agree that primary shouldn't beat secondary if both players are facing each other at the same time with similar skill levels, but in my experience (and I am a very experienced player), primary still loses to secondary about 25% of the time in circumstances where I believe it should always beat secondary. Namely when the enemy is facing the complete wrong direction.

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.

I don't believe the weapon balance is anywhere near as broken as you do. Do I think there problems? Sure. Sucks ballsack level problems? Absolutely not. Because of this, I'm unable to agree that someone who attempts to fight within shotgun range when they have no special ammo has outmaneuvered their enemy. They may be a good player, but in that encounter they made a serious tactical mistake and rightly paid the price for it. (Happens to me all the time!)

...if you don't have special ammo and your enemy does, *what do you do to fight back?* ...Do you run away and hope your super or grenade comes back up before the other team finds you...

Absolutely! I'm at the top of my games and the Crucible is far less frustrating for me when I allow myself to disengage from unfavorable encounters.

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.

I understand that you'd like to be able to kill an unaware opponent with primary before they can turn around and shotgun you - but why limit yourself to one way of killing, and then complain about that?

If I come around a corner and see someone's back, maybe I'll stick them and turn around. Maybe I'll take two shots with my primary as I run to them for a punch to finish the job. There are plenty of options that DON'T require me to go straight up primary vs secondary... and that's good, because primary SHOULDN'T beat secondary, unless 1) you're good, 2) they're bad, or 3) you're lucky.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 would like to see a less abrupt damage fall off. I hated the fact that the halo shotgun was so sensitive to range that one foot less would take you from a sure kill to zero.

You can still make weapons superior in their range bands and allow longer range hits. As long as the TTK climbs when you are out of your range band to past the body shot hit TTK of a weapon in your range band you should be fine.

Shotguns taking 2 hits at range or more shouldn't be an issue.

I agree. It's so frustrating to be just out of lethal shotgun range and see the total damage be 10% of what you'd do a few pixels closer.

Super: 3115 kills
Pulse Rifle: 2978
Shotgun: 2884
Sniper: 2627
AutoRifle: 2615 (that's mostly from year 1 when my Shadow Price ruled the crucible with an iron fist)

Curiously, I have 380 kills with the relic. What's that? Is that from slammos in rift?

And I have only 28 kills with a sword, 94 with a side arm, and 333 with a fusion rifle.

Oh man, I just unloaded on three dudes at once!

There is now a grenade stuck to your head. (shit, I'm a gunslinger so I can't technically say this anymore in video games).

Stay there, I'm going to take this guy from behind.

Pin him down while I get more ammo.

This guy is really salty.

One down, two down, everyone is going down right now!

Aaaand he's dead. Time for a dance party!

The issue is not that special weapons are better. It's that they are dramatically better and it is nearly impossible for a team without special ammo to mount a comeback against a team with special ammo. The gulf is huge. Year 1 had better special vs. primary balance than year 2, while year 2 has better primary vs. primary and special vs. special balance. There is an even better weapon balance model which is attainable.

So you allow people to drop special / heavy ammo if they are killed with a weaker weapon class creating another opportunity to turn games around.

Which is also a thing we all suggested :)