Talk:Opticor/@comment-207.172.179.79-20141027092328/@comment-86.58.21.41-20141027234133

What's the point of lowering the ammo pool anyway? It's just forcing us to reduce effectiveness in favour of ammo mutation. Also, if you guys were to use your brain for a change, you'd see that Opticor is different from Penta and Ogris in that it does not shoot rockets/grenades, but energy. In addition to that, its AoE only procs on walls and the floor, not enemies. You can shoot Penta's grenades over enemies' heads and detonate them at any point; you can shoot Ogris' rockets from way higher and as long as it hits anything near the enemy it will kill everything in a huge radius. Opticor's explosion would not proc if you hit an enemy, and the blast radius is quite smaller in comparison. I'd say the lowest this should go is 72, but ammo is never an issue. Having 20 ammo instead of 540 ammo doesn't balance the weapon in the eyes of those who cry it's OP, as  the thing that truly shines about such weapons is the damage The fact that it can kill late-game enemies with little effort. That's just what the launchers were made for anyway. Forcing us to take ammo mutations just makes it less effective at doing its job. You're not going to be fighting level 100+ enemies with a Skana.

So can people stop crying about "massive damage + large ammo pool = OP &  massive damage +  tiny ammo pool = perfectly balanced"? It's not like Warframe is competitive and one guy gets an unfair advantage over the other guy by having such a weapon. They benefit the collective even by stealing their kills due to how exp distribution works.