Becketts Vs Mercers

[Wildrat]

A one point increase to the steel boost (+4) and Infinite Steel would further specialize Beckett's even more in one ammo type (and provide slightly more consistent damage numbers) versus the Take Aim +3 boost on Mercer's Pistol, which affects all ammo types essentially the same as a specific +3 ammo boost from what I've seen.

Because Mercer's can hit for over 10k with Critical Strike, Quick Load instead of Not in the Face! might further balance the two guns out. Ammo boosts affect damage dealt by Shoot and Take Aim, so this would provide some additional burst damage, but not surpass the 10k+ hits from Mercer's.

Point Blank would also provide additional burst, being a hard hitting break attack that takes time to charge. Either of these skills would provide an alternative and more consistent source of damage but not surpass the damage dealt by Critical Strike on Mercer's.

Mercer's would serve as the "Boss Killer"/10k hitter, while Beckett's would prove to be more effective for laps/regular enemies on Tormenta or Raven's Cove. I think these tweaks to Beckett's would make it more desirable to more than it currently is when being compared to Mercer's.

 

[squintz]

A one point increase to the steel boost (+4) and Infinite Steel would further specialize Beckett's even more in one ammo type (and provide slightly more consistent damage numbers) versus the Take Aim +3 boost on Mercer's Pistol, which affects all ammo types essentially the same as a specific +3 ammo boost from what I've seen.

Because Mercer's can hit for over 10k with Critical Strike, Quick Load instead of Not in the Face! might further balance the two guns out. Ammo boosts affect damage dealt by Shoot and Take Aim, so this would provide some additional burst damage, but not surpass the 10k+ hits from Mercer's.

Point Blank would also provide additional burst, being a hard hitting break attack that takes time to charge. Either of these skills would provide an alternative and more consistent source of damage but not surpass the damage dealt by Critical Strike on Mercer's.

Mercer's would serve as the "Boss Killer"/10k hitter, while Beckett's would prove to be more effective for laps/regular enemies on Tormenta or Raven's Cove. I think these tweaks to Beckett's would make it more desirable to more than it currently is when being compared to Mercer's.

Why should it need to be comparable. Why should any legendary have to be comparable at all. Why should legendary be the same as every other legendary as well as all weapons. None of this matters a pimple on the kraken's butt in pve, and pvp/svs SHOULD auto balance within reason everything anyways. Two different worlds and people need to mention what world they are talking about, because PVE does not need a balance. You use what you find to the best of it's and your abilities in pve. In PVE YOU are the balance. Nothing else.

I have nothing to input about pvp/svs, but they should stay separate and leave global community items alone. PVP/SVS should not and never dictate what goes on in the PVE arena. Because that's where I believe all this balance comes from in the first place.

 

[Roger-Daniel]

Why should it need to be comparable. Why should any legendary have to be comparable at all. Why should legendary be the same as every other legendary as well as all weapons. None of this matters a pimple on the kraken's butt in pve, and pvp/svs SHOULD auto balance within reason everything anyways. Two different worlds and people need to mention what world they are talking about, because PVE does not need a balance. You use what you find to the best of it's and your abilities in pve. In PVE YOU are the balance. Nothing else.

I have nothing to input about pvp/svs, but they should stay separate and leave global community items alone. PVP/SVS should not and never dictate what goes on in the PVE arena. Because that's where I believe all this balance comes from in the first place.

None of the Mercer's/Beckett's balance discussion has anything to do with pvp. It's simply to balance a pair of weapons that are extremely similar yet unfairly balanced. It clearly matters enough if people with Beckett's are making threads on the forums about it. You say "Why should legendary be the same as every other legendary as well as all weapons." even though this thread is attempting to remedy this exact problem.
Beckett's drops from a boss identical to the one that drops Mercer's yet it's a lot worse. Imagine if TLOPO added in a boss identical to Palifico in HP and damage, that dropped a sword identical to Lost Blade of Leviathan, though this one had a slightly different name and had no Leviathan's Curse.
That's basically what Beckett's is. It's identical to Mercer's but has worse passive skills and no crit chance, the two things that make Mercer's good.
It's just simple game balance, something that all games attempt to have
even tlopo evidently enough with all the weapon balance changes smh

 

[squintz]

None of the Mercer's/Beckett's balance discussion has anything to do with pvp. It's simply to balance a pair of weapons that are extremely similar yet unfairly balanced. It clearly matters enough if people with Beckett's are making threads on the forums about it. You say "Why should legendary be the same as every other legendary as well as all weapons." even though this thread is attempting to remedy this exact problem.
Beckett's drops from a boss identical to the one that drops Mercer's yet it's a lot worse. Imagine if TLOPO added in a boss identical to Palifico in HP and damage, that dropped a sword identical to Lost Blade of Leviathan, though this one had a slightly different name and had no Leviathan's Curse.
That's basically what Beckett's is. It's identical to Mercer's but has worse passive skills and no crit chance, the two things that make Mercer's good.
It's just simple game balance, something that all games attempt to have
even tlopo evidently enough with all the weapon balance changes smh

It's identical because it looks like mercers? Is that the issue? There is no balance problem in pve, but pvp'rs keep insisting there is. ONLY in pvp does the question of balance really arise, mainly because of the players using higher weapons or whatever they do in pvp to win.
IN pve a player used what he has found to win. There is no additional boost to weapons, perhaps potions to the players.

So what if levin is better than jacks. So what if mercers is better than becketts. I saw that right away and want mercers and don't care about becketts. So what if I can now stand toe to toe with a boss and beat it after some effort using a legendary. That's what makes them legendary. No one needs to balance or nerf a weapon because they're bored of beating a boss. To impose some sort of balance that I don't believe really exists in this game in PVE is to try to use pvp mentality for a non issue. What's being referred to as balance is boredom. Or sure seems like it.

People shouldn't be forcing the staff to change someone's legendary after the fact for some sort of created balance concept that doesn't really have any influence in one half the game and shouldn't cross over from another half the game that needs a form of balance like in pvp.

And no, games aren't trying to balance everything like they do in pvp. There is no real reason to do so.
The balance theory in PVE is just that, a theory and subjective. And decisions based on subjective ideas aren't always the proper thing to do.

I have nothing further on this as mercers and becketts are meant to be different weapons and should be used as such. Period.
The staff, who knows way better than us about everything in game should have their decisions respected. And accepted. People need to make suggestions, not demands or claim it's wrong.

 

[Beggar]

It's identical because it looks like mercers? Is that the issue? There is no balance problem in pve, but pvp'rs keep insisting there is. ONLY in pvp does the question of balance really arise, mainly because of the players using higher weapons or whatever they do in pvp to win.
IN pve a player used what he has found to win. There is no additional boost to weapons, perhaps potions to the players.

So what if levin is better than jacks. So what if mercers is better than becketts. I saw that right away and want mercers and don't care about becketts. So what if I can now stand toe to toe with a boss and beat it after some effort using a legendary. That's what makes them legendary. No one needs to balance or nerf a weapon because they're bored of beating a boss. To impose some sort of balance that I don't believe really exists in this game in PVE is to try to use pvp mentality for a non issue. What's being referred to as balance is boredom. Or sure seems like it.

People shouldn't be forcing the staff to change someone's legendary after the fact for some sort of created balance concept that doesn't really have any influence in one half the game and shouldn't cross over from another half the game that needs a form of balance like in pvp.

And no, games aren't trying to balance everything like they do in pvp. There is no real reason to do so.
The balance theory in PVE is just that, a theory and subjective. And decisions based on subjective ideas aren't always the proper thing to do.

I have nothing further on this as mercers and becketts are meant to be different weapons and should be used as such. Period.
The staff, who knows way better than us about everything in game should have their decisions respected. And accepted. People need to make suggestions, not demands or claim it's wrong.

Have you ever played a single player RPG besides this one? Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Zelda, Bioshock, Dark Souls, etc. These games all went great lengths to balance their weapons in PvE because the game is more fun if a great number of its weapons have gameplay relevance. PvE balance is not some weird or irrelevant idea.. it underpins the combat mechanics of every good RPG which features multiple attack options.

I applaud the TLOPO devs for rigorously revising their weapons designs to preserve balance. There are 23 legendaries; the game wouldn't be fun for very long if only one or two of them mattered.

 

[Roger-Daniel]

It's identical because it looks like mercers? Is that the issue?

No

There is no balance problem in pve, but pvp'rs keep insisting there is.

This is incorrect. And again, this entire discussion has nothing to do with pvp. I don't pvp, I'm not a pvper, and I can see that Beckett's is not balanced for PVE, or PVP if you want to include that as well. Even the OP who made the thread was discussing a PVE setting (killing cicatriz), not PVP.

ONLY in pvp does the question of balance really arise

This is incorrect. Singleplayer games get balance changes all the time. Pretty much all games need balance changes, especially multiplayer games. And again, this entire discussion has nothing to do with pvp.

No one needs to balance or nerf a weapon because they're bored of beating a boss.

I don't understand what you mean by this. Besides, this thread is discussing the prospect of buffing Beckett's, not nerfing it.

To impose some sort of balance that I don't believe really exists in this game in PVE is to try to use pvp mentality for a non issue.

This game does have balance, and this game is actively getting more and more balanced due to the changes that TLOPO is making. And again, this entire discussion has nothing to do with pvp

People shouldn't be forcing the staff to change someone's legendary after the fact for some sort of created balance concept that doesn't really have any influence in one half the game and shouldn't cross over from another half the game that needs a form of balance like in pvp.

It has massive influence in both sides of the game, and it's not just people forcing, or even asking staff to change people's legendaries. Staff is actively making balance changes by themselves. Soulweaver and Calypso's radiance got buffs. Every single broadsword in the game got it's damage nerfed by 10%. Sabres were buffed and can now crit. Grenades now do half the damage they normally did while Storm Sphere's Maelstrom Charge is now doing twice as much. The list goes on and on, and all of these changes were made to the PVE side, not the PVP one. TLOPO can now make balance changes that only affect PVP and not PVE, keeping them both separate, and all of these were made to PVE specifically. Also all these changes were made within the last 10 days https://piratesforums.co/threads/2020-03-22-tlopo-pyp-v1-0-0.29920/
And again, this entire discussion has nothing to do with pvp.

And no, games aren't trying to balance everything like they do in pvp. There is no real reason to do so.
The balance theory in PVE is just that, a theory and subjective. And decisions based on subjective ideas aren't always the proper thing to do.

Yes there is. Just because your game is single player doesn't mean it shouldn't be balanced or receive any balance changes. And again, this entire discussion has nothing to do with pvp.

The staff, who knows way better than us about everything in game should have their decisions respected. And accepted.

Yes they should, and I think they are. People have learned to live with the balance changes that TLOPO has implemented recently, and now that we see that TLOPO is currently making MASSIVE changes to the balance of the game, we are making suggestions for balance since we now know TLOPO is capable, and entirely willing to make changes to the balance if they think it will benefit the game.

People need to make suggestions, not demands or claim it's wrong.

That's all the people commenting on this thread have been doing.

Spoiler: And again,

this entire discussion has nothing to do with pvp.

GL

 

[Eric Sailcutter]

To my mind this thread is about two similar weapons where one is objectively better than the other. It’s not about balance in the game or even between the two weapons at hand nor does it have anything to do with different game modes.

I see that the two weapons are very similar, and I think many would say too similar. It doesn’t bother me that such similar weapons exist, the game is full of such things. It doesn’t bother me that one is clearly better than the other, the game is also full of those types of things. It’s the combination of similarity and subordination that is at the root of why I agree that some sort of buff to Beckett’s is in order.

There can be no question that both guns are powerful enough to merit legendary status but I feel that it is a tradition that each legendary weapon be unique in some way and that Beckett’s just doesn’t have that. It’s like Beckett’s is the famed version of Mercer’s but it’s clearly too powerful to be famed and I believe the developers intended them to be linked and similar weapons that are of legendary status.

All this makes me want to see a buff to Beckett’s that makes it stand out from Mercer’s in some way, makes it more unique. I don’t want it to be equal or more powerful than Mercer’s, just more different than it is without nerfing it. I see Steel Shot as it’s intended niche but I feel +4 steel is too much.

 

[Wildrat]

Yeah, infinite steel would be pretty useful IMO (when ammo is fixed) and Quick Load or Point Blank would be effective. +4 Steel is just an idea to potentially offer some more consistency in damage numbers versus burst of damage provided by the Critical Strike on top of the Take Aim +3 of Mercer's. (Which does the same damage same as +3 Steel.)

A famed weapon like Magma Blunderbuss boosts a decent ammo (Bane +3) as well as Take Aim +2, so +4 Steel might be balanced for a legendary pistol focused on one specific ammo since it lacks the critical hits of Mercer's which has bonuses that affect all ammo types.

Some or all of these tweaks would end up with Beckett's having a lower ceiling for damage, but more consistent damage. Mercer's would hit slightly lower with Steel, but surpass Beckett's with other ammo types and provide the opportunity to score critical hits with all ammo types, which still would hit for more than Beckett's +4 Steel.

These are just some suggestions since the TLOPO team has already made balancing changes (Tweaks to broadsword damage and sabre critical hits, Calypso's Radiance, etc...).

 

[squintz]

Have you ever played a single player RPG besides this one? Fallout, Elder Scrolls, Zelda, Bioshock, Dark Souls, etc. These games all went great lengths to balance their weapons in PvE because the game is more fun if a great number of its weapons have gameplay relevance. PvE balance is not some weird or irrelevant idea.. it underpins the combat mechanics of every good RPG which features multiple attack options.

I applaud the TLOPO devs for rigorously revising their weapons designs to preserve balance. There are 23 legendaries; the game wouldn't be fun for very long if only one or two of them mattered.

They all matter. It's up to the persons perception how much. Do all of those have pvp modes as well.
Define gameplay relevance when there is time.

My insistence about pvp is because I believe that the way of thinking about certain balancing draws straight from pvp and balancing in pve are two different things that people incorporate in their thinking of 'balance' in tlopo. I get a 50 level fights at a given ratio and stuff against a 50 enemy. That's common and forever in games.

Are people implying that after all the time it took me to finally get lucky with a legendary levi, I should not be able to have more power to fight higher enemies and actually to survive? But because I can, that's out of some sort of 'balance'? So the levi, til now may have to be 'balanced' for some reason? And it's fair to adjust this balance after one finally gets and enjoys the efforts? For why? Whose balance is all of a sudden more important than another's? It's up to the staff ultimately to decide this. 'Fixing' something that ain't broke for the majority isn't always the best solution. And I don't think, speaking for myself that most people who play only PVE think that much about the 'balance' issue as long as the item works. But that is my opinion.

 

[Roger-Daniel]

Do all of those have pvp modes as well.

Those games are singleplayer/PVE or whatever you want to call it.

My insistence about pvp is because I believe that the way of thinking about certain balancing draws straight from pvp and balancing in pve are two different things that people incorporate in their thinking of 'balance' in tlopo.

Nobody mentioned or even hinted at pvp in this thread until you did. I think it's fair to assume that everyone speaking in this thread is strictly discussing PVE balance only. Which like beggar said, isn't some foreign and unheard of idea.

Are people implying that after all the time it took me to finally get lucky with a legendary levi, I should not be able to have more power to fight higher enemies and actually to survive? But because I can, that's out of some sort of 'balance'? So the levi, til now may have to be 'balanced' for some reason? And it's fair to adjust this balance after one finally gets and enjoys the efforts? For why? Whose balance is all of a sudden more important than another's? It's up to the staff ultimately to decide this. 'Fixing' something that ain't broke for the majority isn't always the best solution. And I don't think, speaking for myself that most people who play only PVE think that much about the 'balance' issue as long as the item works. But that is my opinion.

Nobody said anything about Levi, this thread is discussing beckett's pistol and mercer's pistol.