And I would expect no less. Otherwise, whatâs the point? If Iâm just going to flatten ammo on the bot, I might as well do it with a gun with a higher rate of fire. Or with a hunting rifle that takes a suppressor.
I mean, weâre talking about pretty much the lowest enemy tier here.
Now, before you say âbut it makes the game too easyâ: First off, thereâs the obvious option youâre already implementing (and hats off to you), âIf you donât like it, donât use it.â
But second, thereâs how it was handled in the beta: the .50 was strong, but ammo was rare.
So you could take out a bunch of runners with it, but then youâd lack the ammo later in more dire circumstances. I.e. you could, but you probably wouldnât want to. That seems a much more organic and ârealisticâ way of handling things, if one is of the conviction that these things need to be enforced or balanced.
Basically, I can bear the idea that different people like different things with great fortitude.
You like to take one shot at things, I like the opportunity to revisit things (which I may then do, or not do), and thatâs fine. Two great people, two great preferences.
Where it gets difficult for me is when realizing that multi-saves mean people who like to go back can, and people who donât donât have to, whereas enforcing single-saves only caters to one group and leaves the other out in the rain. Because at that point, itâs just a polite re-phrasing of âscrew you, I got mine.â
As I wrote previously, I strongly believe that wherever possible, a game should always take the more permissive stance (e.g. rather than remove adrenaline, keep it, people who find it makes things too easy donât have to use it) so the greatest number of people can play how they like. The more permissive option usually includes the less permissive option, but never vice versa.
