I was wondering when a person dies why is it that they are only dropping 10-30 ammo?

When I asked people mentioned that the ammo dropped was changed so that it was 50% less?


This should be changed back, one of the worst ideas actually put into play.

agreed.

also, in the sfo/wh match the biggest obstacle for both squads was having to worry about conserving ammo cus we were all extremely low. not saying we should have infinite, but maybe increase what we hold from 400 to 600?

I think it's fine, ammo count is a big part of strategy, it also gives weaker squads a chance against top tier teams. I know a lot of people who have 250+ bullets after a battle and don't go pick up ammo, or there are teams that don't ration it out to their teams.

Why was it even changed in the first place without even saying anything?

Leak i actually edited my post so people wouldnt think its about having an advantage but that SFO/WH match is a prime example.

Apollo you think it gives weaker teams a better chance but you are dead wrong, it causes a team like SFO who constantly moves to have to camp their side of the base for ammo reasons and switching. Ask Warhawks, im sure they didnt enjoy having to fight 4 of 5 battles by collie base because of it. So all you're truly doing is causing better squads to camp good luck breaking a good squad holding a position by a weaker squad.

I thought warhawks camped their base because their leader kept dc'ing?

If you beat a team 3 battles in a row and every marine has under 100 bullets, GL camping and holding that for a long period of time. Against dudes that have 400 bullets.

I specifically don't fight in certain places I know will be a long drawn out battle if I know my team is low on Ammo, it causes me to change up my playstyle.

or another argument, if you're raping a team and trapping them in titan base (which happens a lot because how unbalanced this map is) it'll force you to fall back and get ammo.

First 10 minutes they did because of the D/C. Im talking once they lost the first battle they were constantly chasing the game.

So let me understand this correctly, you're saying that a weaker team is going to have a better strategy to break a camping squad which is superior to them just due to ammo?

Its not going to happen. Warhawks is a very good squad. We changed 4 people to lmg during two battles so all it did was waste time, that is all. We split ammo evenly and none of us ended up in trouble, and they did not break it. Even when getting first kill because re-spawn is right by our base. I died first on that south push and still had time to come back and law snipe sol for us to finish winning control in the same battle. I also came back with 400 ammo to be able to share, its far from an advantage to a weaker squad. I understand its solely your opinion though.

For your second argument. All you're doing is keeping the score lower on base rapes, in turn punishing good squads who actually have a chance to have to fight a camping squad.

For instance will AD (Sorry CB no offense) be able to beat SFO because of ammo? The answer is no. So really there is no shot it will cause us to fall and maybe get 60-70 kills not 70-90

The other side of that is that a squad that does have a chance to beat SFO like Warhawks has to fight an SFO which is camping due to lower ammo.

In other words you just wasted time and created a lower probability for a squad who actually has a chance. That is all.

To you its a waste of time, to weaker squads it gives them a chance to get out of their base

Revert it back to the original. I noticed it in EC but it didn't matter because the fights ended much quicker. Poll this.

Honestly, it seems like you're both right. It's true that it's not so drastic of a gamechanger that it will allow bottom tier squads to upset top tier squads. It's also true that it is enough of a difference that it will allow those same bottom tier squads to keep from getting raped for their entire match.

Seems simple to me. If the situation is going to inconvenience someone either way, we should act in benefit of the bottom tier squads. The top tier squads have a better ability to adapt to it, and as Khaos said, it would very rarely if at all affect the outcome.

Actually it doesn't really help them that much, I will test once I get home.

To explain, it would only affect mid tier squads and not in a good way. AD is not going to pro-long a battle with SFO like WH can. So if the change they made was to drop 50% less then that is not in anyway going to stop a base rape from happening.

Reason is because they are not going to waste enough ammo so when they do die we will pick up, stay, and split the ammo. Didn't you drop 80 something kills on AD (Apoc). And you're not the best squad (No offense) so who are you really affecting?

How about just make it so whenever someone dies they only drop 50-100 ammo? No more, no less. Even if they had less than or more than 50-100. Seems like it would balance things out. But running around and only finding piles of single digit or 10-20 ammo at a time has been annoying.

Why was it even changed to begin with? It was perfectly fine in SOE, I rarely remember having ammo issues back then. Now it seems that after every battle teams are scrambling for ammo, seems like a big waste of time.

Should have done something more useful like removing minimum range from AR/SG.

Lowering ammo drops is not smart at all. It will discourage even more battles.

YA FUCKIN CUNT!

Ammo drops were never changed. Ever. Next. :-)

lol

I'm with leak on this, USL has always been about that action... Leave the ammo strats for SL. Even tacticals minimum range is interesting, but I don't think it would be good since I suspect a lot of the lower tier squads already have smaller reso's, and that would hinder them more then the top ones.