Lowering the GL ammo count- Right or Wrong? | Forums

[DREGGSTA]

OK, i'm the 1 whinning?
I played the game before cloud update and will do so after it. I'm not the reason UBI felt the need to lowered its ammo coutn to 1. Never did i prospose this, actually i always voice my opinion on how explosives belong in a 3PS with a cover system. Still i like to see how those tweaks will make this game more of a challenge, and more enjoyable, without all those explosions left and right off GL spamming. Maybe this does not solve it, maybe it will open doors for other 'exploits', but i'm open to new things and test 'em out.
You're the 1 asking for crutches, again, so keeping me off the objective becomes less of a challenge, again. You're the one not wanting to adjust your game to the rules, crying for help from UBI:
Your faulty logic does not change the facts. Spamming your so called argument and insult do neither.

Where do miltary powers help terrorist fulfill their plans, destroying their targets for them. Maybe you just lack any reading skills, or my explainations weren't good enough for. You do not kill the target of an assassin or destroy the building a terrorist tries to bomb, and on top call it a victory just because you did not allow him to fulfill his mission himself, the fact that you also killed the bad guy while does not change a fact here either. The target is desrtroyed, therefor you failed. You kill the assassin or terrorist, hopefullly before he was successful, to defend the target or the building. You do not risk killing/destroying something you try to defend by throwing explosives at. So don't ecuse your newb tubing of obejctives as a miltary tactic, yyou are just lucky the game does not give a penalty for.Sensor take no damge fro getting constatn bombardment? A briefcase full of explosives is immun to 'nades? Its a game , not anything realistic, so references to miltary practice do not justify your coward tactic.

I did not witness any 'missing explosions', making GLs need 2 shots, because 1 always fails. Even 2 shots do not ensure 1 explosion, if it fails halt the time. Actually the odds are 25% to have two srtraighth failed GL shots,. Would this be a reason for an additional round? But isn't changing the game something bad? Or was it likeing something is whinning again? Idk, your logic fails on so many levels.

The fact we get DCs once in while does not justify glitching either to make up or the 'lost' XP. If the GLs really fail from time to time, than UBI just has to fix this. Would you till cry about the lowered ammo count if the GLs go off more often, not failing hlaf the time as you stated.

ps if you say it's ok to use the tools to win the game, why so upset about guys(not even me) making use of the forum suggesting to UBI changes to GLs? if this was the reason for change anyway

there's no point in talking to you bc you bring up things that were never said & you go all over the map but i'll give it one last shot lol. in iraq we bombed air ports to deny enemy use of them as an example. we & other countries have destroyed infrastructure like bridges, buildings & such to disable enemy use. why is this simple thing difficult for you??? you are asserting your own examples & not addressing the ones i've given. so, that makes you seem to be arguing w/yourself. as for my "noob tubing tactic, you obviously posess no knowledge of what tactical means or is.

i played last night & over 80% of the time my gl would not detonate making me victim to the opponents gl that worked even tho i was quicker than my foe. how about this, before any game nerfs/mods are made, the devs fix the lag, latantcy & server issues? sound good to you? sounds great to me. as for my logic failing, you have yet to correctly relate to me w/out inserting your own assertions. you are far from being objective or a good listener/reader.

like i have told you too many times, i am upset that the devs listened to the complainers instead of fixing the, dare i say it for the millionth time, lag, latantcy & server issues. man, you are exhausting to talk to.

have a good day. (lmao @: "Maybe you just lack any reading skills, or my explainations weren't good enough". i wish that was the case bc i wouldn't have a headache right now replying to you.)

[drklight]

there's no point in talking to you bc you bring up things that were never said & you go all over the map but i'll give it one last shot lol. in iraq we bombed air ports to deny enemy use of them as an example. we & other countries have destroyed infrastructure like bridges, buildings & such to disable enemy use. why is this simple thing difficult for you??? you are asserting your own examples & not addressing the ones i've given. so, that makes you seem to be arguing w/yourself. as for my "noob tubing tactic, you obviously posess no knowledge of what tactical means or is.

i played last night & over 80% of the time my gl would not detonate making me victim to the opponents gl that worked even tho i was quicker than my foe. how about this, before any game nerfs/mods are made, the devs fix the lag, latantcy & server issues? sound good to you? sounds great to me. as for my logic failing, you have yet to correctly relate to me w/out inserting your own assertions. you are far from being objective or a good listener/reader.

like i have told you too many times, i am upset that the devs listened to the complainers instead of fixing the, dare i say it for the millionth time, lag, latantcy & server issues. man, you are exhausting to talk to.

have a good day. (lmao @: "Maybe you just lack any reading skills, or my explainations weren't good enough". i wish that was the case bc i wouldn't have a headache right now replying to you.)

[Charity Diary]

I think that, especially with an issue like this, a 41% "No" vote is enough to consider the change as having a negative effect on the game and its players. I mean, out of the 59% of people who voted yes, some are probably still biased against the launcher from other games like Socom, some have probably just never used it, some just don't like dying by it because they hide behind cover all day, and others are some combination of those three.

The 41% see the weapon for what it really is: a watered-down tool to get campers out of their nests. If you use the gun any other way, you're going to get shot and killed by normal weaponry, and anyone who dies by the frag launcher has only theyself to blame.

Take Gears of War, for example. People that can use the Hammerburst effectively and in the right circumstances love the gun, but probably only 25% or less of the game's players actually use the gun, and it's one of three rifle choices. It's simply a misunderstood gun. However, if the 75% of players who don't like the gun just complained about it, and then Epic Games nerfed it or removed it from the game, that would be a bad decision on the developers' part.

No matter what, you don't remove or nerf a weapon crucial to a specific playstyle just because a group of people with the opposite playstyle don't like it, because then you're catering to a specific playstyle - you're picking favorites.

As of now, the playstyle of the Stun Camper is the favorite. You've nerfed the frag launcher and the UCAV, two tools essential for picking off campers who place their stun mines and just wait for enemies to walk into their field of vision or onto one of their set-and-forget mines. Meanwhile, aggressive, tactical players like me have been handicapped; our explosives have been nerfed and watered down. How we play is now ALWAYS dependent on how the stun camper plays, and one playstyle should never have that effect on another playstyle.

EDIT:
Devs, how can you argue with that logic? =(

[xGRFSisAjokex]

Ubisoft are one of the very best game Devs ever!
They know what they are doing so isn't it obvious that lowering the GL ammo was the right thing to do.
Ubisoft Devs are Gods and questioning their thought process is a sin, anyone voting wrong should be ashamed of your selves.
My vote is right!

[sarsdisease21]

How are tactical players handicapped by having one Granada taken away. I play tactical and that's why I enjoy the game. But I'm always moving up and rarely stay in one place for more then a couple sounconds. I do understand why people don't like the decision but to me it needed to be done. People act like it's so hard to take out a camper without a gl. Perfect example. I was playing siege on harbor and I got pinned down in the middle of the bridge. No where to go without getting shot. Said to my team over the mic I have 2 people focused on me and u can flank them. They ran up the steps got 2 easy kills. There was another guy camping in the back who shot one of the guys flanking. We teamed up went after him from 3 different ways. That's how u deal with campers. We didn't even need equipment to take them out. Just some good old teamwork.

[Shazbot4]

the nerf was wrong. the idea of nerfing the ammo box is also wrong. luckly in the patch notes they said "we will monitor the GL's usage for future changes" so even ubisoft admits they are leaving the idea open to reversing, and they will reverse it, i promise.

funny thing about grenades in general that every video game gets wrong. first off the grenade it's self is on a timed fuse. like the ones you throw. so no matter how far you shoot it. it's going to explode in the same moment it being 1 foot in front of you or 40 feet in the air. all the games portray GL's as a detonation on impact, this is FALSE. but this is future soldier so well assume there is a detonation trigger on the leading edge of the round kay?

the actual damage of a grenade is not an explosion but the shrapnel that it sends out at super sonic speeds that does it's damage. watch the episode on mythbusters and you will see what im talking about. they put a bunch of plywood dumies within a few feet of a military grade fragmentation grenade. the explosion it's self didn't even knock the plywood dummies over that could be pushed over by a light breeze. but the bits of metal sent out cut everything and the penetration was near over 50% into secondary objects with in a few feet. still was pretty much a kill within 5 feet where everything further would probably put you in the hospital unless you got hit in the head.

so my point is, in this game the frags send nearby people flying in the air with no damage or a kill. if they were going for realism they would just fall over and bleed to death. heck in real life if you didn't hear the bag and had a grenade go off next to you, you probably not even know that you just got cut to death. like that guy who got 7 times by a pistol at 5 feet of range and didn't even realize it.(it was captured on film by the news a few years ago)

i think the GL's were fine since they are hardly a guaranteed kill in this game unless you put it inches off their feet. even when fired into a group of 3 you are lucky to get even 1 kill out of it where the second shot would fishing them off.

GL's are pointless because as mentioned before, they fire duds and wont kill someone. i've been hit by them 4 times consecutively and lived. the accuracy is far more valuable and mere fact that everyone will stop using them and switch to incendiary will prompt a revert back to 2 shots per supply.

[IV-70]

the nerf was wrong. the idea of nerfing the ammo box is also wrong. luckly in the patch notes they said "we will monitor the GL's usage for future changes" so even ubisoft admits they are leaving the idea open to reversing, and they will reverse it, i promise.

funny thing about grenades in general that every video game gets wrong. first off the grenade it's self is on a timed fuse. like the ones you throw. so no matter how far you shoot it. it's going to explode in the same moment it being 1 foot in front of you or 40 feet in the air. all the games portray GL's as a detonation on impact, this is FALSE. but this is future soldier so well assume there is a detonation trigger on the leading edge of the round kay?

the actual damage of a grenade is not an explosion but the shrapnel that it sends out at super sonic speeds that does it's damage. watch the episode on mythbusters and you will see what im talking about. they put a bunch of plywood dumies within a few feet of a military grade fragmentation grenade. the explosion it's self didn't even knock the plywood dummies over that could be pushed over by a light breeze. but the bits of metal sent out cut everything and the penetration was near over 50% into secondary objects with in a few feet. still was pretty much a kill within 5 feet where everything further would probably put you in the hospital unless you got hit in the head.

so my point is, in this game the frags send nearby people flying in the air with no damage or a kill. if they were going for realism they would just fall over and bleed to death. heck in real life if you didn't hear the bag and had a grenade go off next to you, you probably even know that you just got cut to death. like that guy who got 7 times by a pistol at 5 feet of range and didn't even realize it.(it was captured on film by the news a few years ago)

i think the GL's were fine since they are hardly a guaranteed kill in this game unless you put it inches off their feet. even when fired into a group of 3 you are lucky to get even 1 kill out of it where the second shot would fishing them off.

GL's are pointless because as mentioned before, they fire duds and wont kill someone. i've been hit by them 4 times consecutively and lived. the accuracy is far more valuable and mere fact that everyone will stop using them and switch to incendiary will prompt a revert back to 2 shots per supply.

I don't think GL are for killing anyway, atleast in video games. Yes, video games are totally unrealistic, but to be a game, for enjoyment in our feetime. It has to fit in there.
Explosives, to me, are against groups of enemies and for indirect fire, in a 3PV game using a cover system. If they are used as primaries UBI will not revers it. That was the reason for change, them being used as primaries, exploiting their power, while not requiring much skill and having not almost no downside, especially with ammo boxes.

[DREGGSTA]

same goes for you buddy. i can't dumb down my talk much more but i could make a picture book for you.