{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by kellygreen45:
12/11/2018 1:46:15 PM
25
1. BAN SLEEPER!!!
Sleeper gets nerfed, and so people move to Queensbreaker.
2. BAN QUEENSBREAKER!!!
Linear fusion rifles get a global nerf to ammo supply...so people now use Thunderlord.
3. BAN THUNDERLORD!!
Okay....you do realize that Hammerhead is basically Thunderlord without the exotic perk RIGHT....and that it can probably roll with Rampage and other damage buffs?
TLDR: WHEN are you Nerfherders going to realize that you can't fix your difficulties with the game by breaking and banning weapons? All that you do is break the weapon....and the good players who are making your life miserable with it...will just move to the NEXT most efficient weapon and continue to make your life miserable until you FIX whatever weakness in your game they are taking advantage of??
EDIT:
You do realize that the game does allow you to carry your own shotgun and your own heavy weapon, right? Why don't you try learning how to use them, rather than demanding that they be taken out of the hands of other people??
English
-
It’s remarkable to me that so few people see that...
-
Sleeper did need a nerf, it was like shooting fish in a barrel while invading. It’s perfect now. Queenbreaker I think still needs a nerf to the QuickDraw site - it is a perfectly reasonable weapon except being able to map someone with the combat site and extremely short charge time is just too easy. There is no reason to run the other “long distance sight” because the range seems exactly the same. Otherwise ammo is right and nerf was appropriate. Thrunderlord is fine. There are no issues, only whining. It’s a nice counter to the above two weapons and has more utility in game for ads and bosses.
-
Edited by kellygreen45: 12/11/2018 4:16:01 PMNone of those weapons needed to be nerfed. From my perspective you had a community of players who were not used to PvP taking place at the ranges that Sleeper and Queensbreaker permitted. Because this game's PvP maps are so tiny....and ambush tactics in Gambit are so effective because of the map designs. IOW, when someone stands around out in the open shooting bots because they think that sheer DISTANCE will keep them safe? Its like shooting fish in a barrel because IT IS SHOOTING FISH IN A BARRELL. Its actually easier to kill people with Thunderlord than it is Sleeper or QB. The only thing is that Thunderlord requires you to get CLOSER before you do it. Which for someone who understand how to advance INTO cover....is really not that hard. As I said earlier the issue with Gambit is that the PVP portion of the game is too frequent...and has too much of an impact on the game. You won't fix those design problems by breaking weapons . People will just got to the next-most-efficient-weapon.
-
Lol - you don’t have(or don’t know how to use) the queenbreaker do you. If I don’t team wipe the other team when I invade with it, it is a letdown. It’s even easier than using the sleeper. If you saw someone with sleeper you at least had a chance to duck back into cover. Not the case with queenbreaker.
-
I know how to use every weapon in the game. If QB is a very good fit for your play, style....great. Personally I found Sleeper and Thunderlord easier to use. Even as a skilled fusion rifle user, I never liked QBs handling or is irritatingly short charge-up time. That's why we have an armory. Some weapons suit some players better than others. Which is why you don't try to fix game mode DESIGN problems by monkeying around with the Sandbox. The only issue with QB is that its charge up time was short enough that the user can draw a bead on you and fire....before you can manage to pick him out of the background. But then Crooked Fang can do the same thing. So while the long charge up time could allow you to outduel a Sleeper user at range....you have to treat someone using QB like you would a sniper. Don't peek.....PUSH. Stay in cover when you're still. Stay in motion---unpredictably in motion---when you're out of cover. The weapon is annoying...but its manageable if you understand what it can and cannot do.
-
Okay - so you have answered the comment with your reasoning on why queenbreaker is so good and it comes down to this - there are two sights on the weapon. One is obsolete because the other is unbeatable especially if you play it right. 1. Qb vs sleeper - Qb has same range and quicker charge time. I will win. 2. Qb vs thunderlord - distance will win easy. Even if you charge in I can catch you around the corner and compensate for jumping / sliding ect because charge time is so fast and aim assist is so high. 3. Qb vs Shotgun rusher - unless you come from four different directions in perfect coordination, I’ll pick you off before you even reach me. 4. Sniper - unless you happen to see exactly where I am and have unbelievable skill - Qb charge + aim assist + knowing your location is just too easy. The simple nerf is to decrease the range on the short charge site thereby forcing you to choose a distance weapon (shotgunners with good movement, snipers, sleeper now stand a reasonable chance) or midrange (thunderlord, sniper, sleeper now have adequate advantage at some range) . There is just no real weakness to qb.
-
Every exotic heavy weapon in this game is "unbeatable" in the right hands, being used intelligently. NONE of them are magic "I WIN" buttons. QB is a slaying machine in your hands. Sleeper and Thunderlord are in my hands. Which is why you don't fix design problems by breaking weapons.
-
The darci (rip - remember when it was good) thinks otherwise. Sure you can be better with other weapons. But in the hands of equally skilled players the qb wins at almost every distance - except at extreme close quarters, which rarely happens in gambit and has a useless sight. And that is why it needs a nerf.
-
Edited by kellygreen45: 12/11/2018 6:01:35 PMOnly if you’re dumb enough to try to take it on face to face. Just like you will lose to a sniper in that same situation unless you are a significantly better player than the sniper. If I know you have that weapon equipped, you’ll never catch me trying that. You’re going get ambushed from your blindside.
-
Edited by stevepossible: 12/11/2018 7:14:55 PMBut that’s impossible against an invader because your position on the map is clearly visible ... any gambit invader can take 5 seconds to see where the most vulnerable target is at and if anyone is even close.
-
Edited by kellygreen45: 12/11/2018 7:26:36 PM[quote]But that’s impossible against an invader because your position on the map is clearly visible [/quote] No it isn't. Most people who think they can multi-task....can't. So while the information is available, players vary WILDLY in their ability to process that information and track 4 different people at the same time. Its why jet fighters for much of the 70s through the late 1990s had a second airman....a RIO or Radar Intercept Officer. Before computers became powerful enough, the pilots were simply being flooded with too much information in combat for one person to fly.....fight....interpret the radar...and manage the plane's weapons all at once. Good players simplify this problem by dropping a number of blockers on the opposning team...and then invading. Because that will tend to draw everyone into the center of the map....and keep all the potential targets in FRONT of him. But if they don't do that....or you find yourself up against someone like me....they can often be caught from the flanks or from behind simply because they are so focused on what they are shooting at, that they lose track of where you are. Which is why nothing IRRITATES me more when solo queueing in Gambit than PVE players who run off and HIDE like scared rabbits when they have less than five motes on them. If I'm only carrying a couple of motes, I'm going to platform clear blockers....or I'm pushing out to come kill you.... ...and just DARING you to waste your time and ammo killing me.
-
Boom. Knowledge.
-
Well stated, couldn't agree more.
-
Given the collective logic and reason sprinkled over this community- it's not surprising that NOBODY understands this concept, and even if they do, they reject it 100% of the time in favor of getting support from likeminded people who get off on forming movements petitions etc. I suspect these people just don't have any of those weapons and they suffer from envy. the unfortunate side effect of RNG in an "MMO" -loose use of the term.
-
I call it "Kill the Cow." You have a cow...and you're reaping the benefits of having that cow. I don't have a cow....so you get benefits that I don't have access to. I can respond in one of two ways. 1. I can figure out how to get my own cow, so that I can have the benefits as well. I improve my situation. But that takes work....and that comes with a risk of failure. or.... 2. I can kill your cow. That way I take away the benefits you are deriving from it, and "bring you back down to my level". It (in this kind of situation) takes very little effort...and carries little risk of failure. The problem is you wind up being stuck in the same place. So while the OP my be successful in killing the Thunderlord "cow".....he's going to be right back in the same situation when people just start using Hammerhead. Or any of the other LMGs that are coming into the game. Because he hasn't dealt with his inability to adapt to the demands of PVP in this type of open-world setting.
-
I’m not sure why I enjoy this statement so much but either way it’s entirely true. We are already at a disadvantage in gambit but nerfing weapons only hurts the other players more. Making the game mode harder and reducing the pool of viable heavy weapons to use against the more difficult enemies and prime evil. Gambit should be 1 round 100 motes and reduce the amount of times people can invade. Or at least fix how invasion happens because sometimes the actual alert for an invader doesn’t even happen. If they fixed the little things like bugs and glitches it would do wonders for the game mode but please for the love of god stop crying for nerfs. Instead how about cry against the people that are purposely throwing matches from the get go instead of actually playing it out it takes the same amount of time either way. Cry for more maps because mars and io don’t have any yet neither does titan cry about the length of the matches but stop crying for weapon nerfs because it does nothing but effect everyone else all because either A the person crying doesn’t have the weapon and is just mad or B they just want to ruin things for people. It’s like the people crying for nerfs in crucible but refuse to take into account how those nerfs affect the rest of the game. It’s selfish behavior all around
-
That concept deserves its own post.
-
Amen!
-
Not to mention Thunderlord was literally the EASIEST exotic to obtain in Destiny!!!!
-
Try to play gabmit a dozen times without a machine gun. You will understand me.
-
Edited by kellygreen45: 12/11/2018 3:37:28 PMI've played Gambit since the day it dropped...and I've played with just about every weapon in the arsenal in the heavy slot. The reason why YOU are calling for nerfs, and I'm not...is simple. I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GAME IS ASKING OF ME...AND ADAPTED. PvP in this game is NOT like the Crucible..and its never GOING to be like The Crucible. The game is designed to give a sanitized version of the sort of open-world PVP you see in MMOs and other RPGs. So the game is designed to give that lone invader a fighting chance against a full fireteam of FOUR Guardians. It is a test of tactics, build strength, and adaptability...not "gun skill". So a SMART player isn't going to come at you with a primary. He's going to come after you with the FASTEST killing method at his disposal....and he's going to use ambush tactics to leverage the fact that he's not showing up on your radar if you're defending. So if you don't understand how to use cover...and to manage the ENORMOUS sightlines that a Gambit arena offers an invader....you're going to die. A LOT. Likewise as invader, you're going to be going up against a full fireteam of four players with their own supers...and their own special-and-heavy weapons. A full fireteam that can be making callouts. That may have your spawn point memorized (and are camping it). That may be mounting a coordinated, GROUP defense against you. So if you don't learn how to make use of cover as you advance across the arena. You will die.....A LOT. In either case, breaking weapons and demanding nerfs WILL not solve your problem. All that is going to happen is that someone like me----who understand the game----will just choose the NEXT most efficient weapon, and employ the BEST tactics for the use of THAT weapon..... ...and you'll keep dying. ..and then you'll start asking for that weapon to be banned or nerfed as well. But you'll have to break or ban the entire ARMORY before you'll find a heavy weapon that I can' kill someone who doesn't make proper use of cover with.
-
Edited by Ultima Akhino: 12/11/2018 1:47:20 PMI really don’t understand why people ask to ban weapons besides the fact that it killed them. There’s no reason to restrict weapons from any activity.
-
1. It serves an emotional need. Blaming the weapon lets them believe that they only lost because the other guy had an unfair advantage (never mind that the game allows you to equip the same weapon). 2. it highlights an expectations problem. Too many people go into Gambit and expect the pvp to be like the Crucible. its not....and its never going to be. If---as an invader----I find myself in a "fair" fight with you? I'm either desperate....or I've screwed up. Because a good player is going to be coming after you with the fastest killing method at his disposal. 3.. Some weapons do cause problems in games....but not because of the weapon. Its because the weapon exposes DESIGN flaws in the game. All these heavy weapons are being experienced as OPPRESSIVE because: a. PvP in Gambit is too frequent....and has too much of an impact on the game. A single team wipe during the mote phase can put a team in a hole that they can't climb out of.....and one wipe during the boss fight can basically erase ALL of your damage on the Boss. b. NO SKILL MATCHING. Its Okay if pvp is that influential if you're matching teams against teams....or players of equal skill with one another. But without any sort of skill-matching....Gambit games can quickly devolve into crazy-making exercises in futility.
-
I’ve been thinking a lot of the same as of late. I used to be a person who cried nerf until I realized gambit and crucible are two entirely different animals and expecting one to be like the other is just plain out ignorant. That being said you are right there is no skill matching and frankly put the invasions happen far to often. But that does bring up an interesting point here because on one hand you have bungie who has no idea about what balance is and other you have people crying because they lost and then in the middle are people like you and I going can we please just play the game for one day with out somebody crying for a nerf
-
Agreed
