Overpowered for a gun, maybe, but it would probably put it just in line with a sword. Guns currently sacrifice too much dps and mobility for the small amount of safety they provide.

What is your deal with Wolvers users? Using the best armor in the game doesn't make one's opinion irrelevant.

The larger any population gets, the more likely it is to have its share of idiots. That set of equipment happens to be popular because it combines the best equipment in the game. Most people choose their gear with the intention of actually being effective. Not everyone who uses that loadout is narrow-minded and unwilling to change.

As already said, discarding people opinion based on them wearing an optimal loadout is dumb. I am one of those people using mainly wolver line armors just because they are the best for swordsman (plus, Snarby is awesome <3). Does that makes my opinion unworthy ?

Anyway, for a time, I really wished I could have an elemental gun which is not pulsar and have 3 shots per clip. I don't really like the shoot-pause technique. I got used to it, the rare times I use my Nova Driver, but I would certainly like this change, as long as damage is slightly reduced to not become OP (or another small thing to compensate).

But to be honest, there are tons of items who deserve a buff more than alchemers *cough* troika *cough*

As much as i would love a 3 shot clip, I'm pretty sure that it would be OP. using the alchemer properly, with a 3shot clip, could equate to 6 hits per clip, and some good DPS. I'm imagining it right now, and the sheer amount of damage i could do... wow man. Just wow.

The main complaint about Polaris is that it is OP (and the nitronome effect, but thats more visual). 3 shots of intense damage to anything in a corner. Imagine that same damage without the knockback. Lumbers wouldn't stand a chance. Retrodes would be a joke. Gun puppies might be able to get one round off. Maybe. *quivers with pleasure*

So much fun. Like Fradow said though, there are other things that need a buff more than Alchemers. Shadowsun armor, for instance. Troika is another example. A 5* Winmillion. Shadow defense for bombers.

This buff isn't necessary just because alchemers are fine where they are at now.

It's like suggesting Brandishes to going pure elemental / shadow - why? It is not a necessary buff.

"The Wiki states that 2 normal shots do roughly the same as a single charge shot, so it sorta supports my statement that 3 shots would be too powerful."

you can position the charge a little bit to the right or the left but still hitting the monster and you clip bullets with damage that is approx 4 normal alchemer shots, not 2.

"As already said, discarding people opinion based on them wearing an optimal loadout is dumb. I am one of those people using mainly wolver line armors just because they are the best for swordsman (plus, Snarby is awesome <3). Does that makes my opinion unworthy ?"

it depends Fradow, have you never ever used guns and only use swords and promote thar wolver and try and give people your opinions about guns you've never used?

Remember, a smart geared swordsman is different from a wolver clone.

If you are a wolver clone (which you are not, I have read your posts before it sounds like you have definately used guns) then yes, your opinion is literally not worthy.

with a 3shot clip, could equate to 6 hits per clip"

I think you typo'd perro :P

The main complaint about Polaris is that it is OP"

There has never been any logical complaint about Polaris being OP, what suggests this? It is the best swordsman sidearm and it is generally claimed by them to be the "best gun" and "OP" because their wolver clone minds are very simple (I bet it is them that confused you honest). Most gunners will take an alchemer over a Polaris in a heartbeat for most situations, but hate not having a Polaris around (because Polaris is awesome), just not necessarily OP.

Imagine that same damage without the knockback. Lumbers wouldn't stand a chance."

If there was no Polaris knockback, it wouldn't be better. people like the knockback and use Polaris for its purposes, and it is an entirely different gun than an alchemer. One is for survivability on every day monsters (Polaris) and one is much more ideal for DPSing every day monsters and AoE (alchemer).

"There is already heavy discussion as to the power levels of Polaris v. Alchemers. They are almost completely balanced (I will not speak to whether one is better than the other, I'm not an expert). Buffing one or the other is going to upset that balance. So, yes, it would be overpowered. Not compared to swords, but because there is already a fair power balance among the elemental guns.

Yeah, that

"Just because I own Wolver armor sets doesn't make me bad; I use it because it provides me with the most optimal bonuses for my unique playstyle."

Yeah, you aren't a wolver clone in wolver armor. A wolver clone thinks swords are the way to go and nothing else. And they shove their opinions where they are not wanted. You don't do that, you are a smart geared swordsman - completely different.

@ Otaia

Don't forget that swords also can be as defensive, if not more so sometimes, than guns, simply because they can knock enemies down, interrupt their attacks, and push them away. Most guns don't do that, or at least not consistently. People argue that the tradeoff for guns is that they sacrifice damage to be more defensive/add to survivability. As it stands, it feels like guns sacrifice an enormous amount of damage for a negligible amount of survivability.

Otaia

Everything you say is not quite valid yet. To prove everything you said to be a logical observation:

You must now list every piece of gear you use for your gunning set. You need to tell us the exact damage bonuses, attack speed increase, UVs, guns, all of that. If possible, something that indicates your experience with guns.

Until then, it is hard to see if you are actually arguing or possibly trolling trying to make yourself sound like a wolver clone or something just for fun.

Go. Start thee list.

"you can position the charge a little bit to the right or the left but still hitting the monster and you clip bullets with damage that is approx 4 normal alchemer shots, not 2."

you can do the same with regular shots. They each bounce off a single ricochet which would equal 4 "shots" per clip. I have the gun, and I know how to use it, but counting ricochets is pointless. Either you assume they all hit, or they all miss and it gives the same results. You can't assume that the charge shots ricochet's ricochet will hit since it is highly unlikely.

Rawr doesn't want you to compare guns to swords, Otaia. Even if you point out the advantages of guns and how they pale alongside the advantages of swords and swordsmen equipment. Prepare to have half your post ignored by him/her and called a wolver clone. Since only wolvers are jerks that shove their opinion of "omfg y u no use op swords".

Brb, off to call every gunner I meet selfish elitist jerks who only brags about the size of their health bars compared to everyone else. Are you a gunner clone?

See what I did there?

Uv's do not indicate experience. Neither does equipment. Knowing how to use guns without any bonus from anything is experience. Which sword/gun or bomb/gun hybrid uses gunslinger armour or trinks, if they only got one gun? Will you call them inexperienced?

On-topic: Yes, it would make alchemers more powerful. Considering that each alchemer shot has potential for ricochets, every extra bullet in a clip equates to 2 or more individual bullets.

@Otaia I didn't say that guns can out-damage swords on a combo-to-combo basis. What I said is that gunners and bombers compete with me heavily for overall damage. A gunner who looses two Nova shots into a crowd and hits half a dozen enemies with each shot, hitting about 12 times for ~250 damage, is going to out-damage any swordsman using a brandish who is comboing for three hits of ~400 each. The only time I consistently out-damage gunners is when I have a Vortexing bomber with me, in which case I can hit ~5 enemies with each swing. On the other hand, my gunner friends can also hit a similar number of enemies with each Polaris bullet, so the difference, while consistent, is still not massive.

Sure, if I stand against one enemy (or, optimally, three) in a corner and wail on the enemies with a gunner trying to do the same, I'll out-damage him every time. This is not the case. Gunners have the blessing of being able to fire almost continuously, without stopping, for an entire fight. Swordsmen have to attack, block attacks much more frequently, run around to the back of enemies, and chase down enemies which run away. Gunners have a much more constant stream of damage. Each of their shots does less damage, yes. They do less damage per clip. Over a long period of time, however, due to the fact that swordsmen have to run directly up to every enemy they want to hit, the damage-per-minute ratings of swordsmen and gunners are much closer than you'd think.

I also mentioned that there are different advantages to being a swordsmen or a gunner. Gunners get survivability, everyone knows that. Swordsmen, on the other hand, get burst damage. A swordsman can take down a mender or a silkwing in very, very little time, whereas gunners (especially so with menders, because they can self heal) take a longer time to do so. Gunners have lower single-targed dps. They always have. That does not mean that they contribute less damage as a whole against a group of enemies.

I don't have much more to say on this; There are dozens of balance threads out there. A lot of people get caught on the fact that gunners do less damage per bullet and can't see the big picture. Some gunners who feel the need to actually defend their playstyle, though, look past that and see that they hit just as many targets, and more often, than swordsmen.

EDIT: I make no mention of pvp, because yes, pvp is broken. Utterly and completely broken. Grab some skolver and a toothpick and you win.

@The-Rawrcake Thanks for being a smart gunner and defending the balance debate in my absence, bro. Haha

I already addressed that issue with safety. Yes, if I only use my Magma Driver in a level vs. someone of equal skill only using Combuster, chances are, I'll take a little bit less damage, but if the person with a Combuster has a Polaris for taking out turrets and occasionally getting out of bad situations, that already small advantage goes away. In a full, balanced loadout, there isn't much use for Alchemers.

Some of the gunners on this forum always talk about clipping Alchemer shots to get double damage but the notion that this greatly increases the power of the Alchemer is ridiculous. First of all, you have to be perfectly lined up with the monster at the right angle to get this to work. Then, the shot needs to bounce in the right direction (this is pretty lenient). If you are doing simple content with really slow and large monsters, you can maybe pull this off 25-30% of the time. When doing any content that's actually challenging, against monsters that are fast, forget it. It's way more important to aim well enough to hit the monster at all. It'll only happen by accident maybe 5-10% of the time. When you're fighting monsters in a cluster, you can often get multiple bounces off, but in that case, a Brandish can also hit 2-3 at a time, and a heavy sword will hit even more, so that doesn't really mean much.

LD just exemplifies the problems that already exist in the PvE game. The problems that gunners face in the Clockworks mostly involve not being able to do much damage and decreased survivability against monsters that move quickly and charge. These problems exist to an even greater degree in LD and can be fixed or mitigated with the same changes.

I realize the design of the game is intended to make swords the weapon of choice for most players and I'm totally fine with swords doing more damage and guns being more useful for mobility and survivability. But I think using alternative setups should also be somewhat competitive, to increase diversity in setups. The current balance of the game is so skewed towards Wolver-wearing swordies that almost everyone uses the same build. I'm a gunner simply because I enjoy using guns, not because it offers any advantages whatsoever.

"Rawr doesn't want you to compare guns to swords, Otaia. Even if you point out the advantages of guns and how they pale alongside the advantages of swords and swordsmen equipment. Prepare to have half your post ignored by him/her and called a wolver clone. Since only wolvers are jerks that shove their opinion of "omfg y u no use op swords".

Brb, off to call every gunner I meet selfish elitist jerks who only brags about the size of their health bars compared to everyone else. Are you a gunner clone?

See what I did there?"

I explained when I asked you if you were a wolver clone eventually after you first took offense what the actual meaning of a wolver clone is. You can wear wolver armor and not be a wolver clone.

Stop being so sensitive. I never intended to hurt your feelers, and if I did I am sorry. Fishing for attacks is more childish than me posting something that hinted negativity towards you, even though it might not have. Cut it.

Stop complaining about Wolver Clones! It's implied who he meant by Wolver clone, so stop tearing apart the name and just discuss Alchemers!

As for the actual thread, I completely agree with giving them another shot. Personally, I HATE two shot weapons, and the rhythm just feels awkward IMO. I feel that one shot, pause, one shot, pause doesn't take advantage of the Gunslinger armor ASI buff that much (It does, but it's hard to get used to using it to the fullest). There aren't that many guns that have more than two shots, and most of those I find more enjoyable than the Alchemer.

But, going on a tangetially related point, the main reason I dont like the Alchemers is not the two shot nature, but it just doesnt feel like it does damage. You have guns like the Callahan where a shot feels like Zeus punching you in the face, or the Blitz Needle which has brilliant golden streaks turning dozens of Zombies into dust, which FEEL satisfying. I dont care how underpowered guns are, as long as they FEEL powerful, then people will wuve em. The Alchemers dont feel powerful! It feels like you are shooting spitballs at the enemy, occasionally watching them spontaneously burst into flame, freeze in place, or get shocked. I would prefer that they fix the hitbox issue (anyone who has used an Alchemer knows what I'm talking about) and then add some satisfying effect/sound on contact with the enemy to at least make it feel more like a Grenade Launcher than shooting spitballs through a straw.