Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

[Balance] A Better Way To Handle Weapon Progression: Putting Crit On Low-Tier Weapons


NikolaiLev
 Share

Recommended Posts

Some insist that Warframe is already using a tier-based system to enforce weapon progression.  It's unclear whether this is actually DE's intent or if this is merely a result of DE's sloppy balancing processes; expensive research weapons like the Spectra and Flux rifle remain exceedingly weak, while low mastery rank weapons like akbolto and galatine are among some of the most powerful weapons in the game.

 

I personally don't think there should be any gear progression in the game.  An mk-1 braton should be as usable as a boltor prime.  It means that for the veteran player, there's far more choice available than if gear were balanced according to tiers.  That's obviously not the case now, and some insist that there should be a select few weapons you use at lategame.

 

But there's a way to please both camps.  To make early-game weapons perform poorly until you invest in them.  Doing so with formas and potatos would bring them up to the level of soma and synapse.  How would this be done, you ask?

 

Critical strikes.  Currently, crit is often the culprit for many weapons being overpowered; the synapse and soma scale ridiculously well when invested in while being relatively balanced at base.  Did you know the Tetra and Soma have identical DPSes when unmodded?  Yet when modded, the Soma beats the Tetra with a whopping 6,000 DPS.  And that's because of how crit scales.

 

The solution would be to move crit, as a stat, onto starter gear, while endgame gear has superior base damage but no crit.  This means that you hardly need a few formas to make prime gear shine, while if an mk1-braton strikes your fancy you're just a potato and some formas away from taking it to the dark sectors.

 

Of course, you can still potato endgame gear to squeeze out a little performance from it, but you won't be getting quite as much as you would if you were putting that investment in a weaker weapon.

 

This means the Lato, Skana and Mk-1 Braton would have the best crit in the game, while weapons like Soma and Boltor prime would have next to no crit chance or damage.  At base, weapons like primes would perform well, and scale better with just damage and elements.  But despite their inferior base damage, early gear would ramp up when fully slotted, and perform about equally well as prime gear.

 

TL;DR Use crit to allow early game weapons to scale well with investment, while rebalancing "high-tier" gear to start off stronger at base, and taper off with investment.

Edited by NikolaiLev
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great idea, but...I donno how to feel about this. Turning Crit into a "MK1 Braton can be awesome if I put Point Strike/Vital Sense on it!" I just...I donno how to feel about that. It would work, to be honest, and would take the Soma off it's "Crit Machine" pedestal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are two variables to play with - crit chance and crit damage.  Early weapons can be balance along either or both - and in turn these variables will balance them against higher-tier weapons overall damage.
 

So maybe the MK-1 could have a normal-ish crit chance but a rediculously high crit damage multiplier - thats an example.  It would give the early weapons a few cool quirks that would let them contend with higher tier weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Half of it is good, anyway.

 

I see no reason to make starter gear equal to prime gear, nor do I understand the forums obsession with turning this into Call of Duty guns where they have near identical results and different skins. Seriously, check out symthic for stats or watch any of the youtube "in depth" series and you'd probably not be able to tell weapons apart if it weren't for the names.

 

However, I think increasing the crit ability of starter guns would make them more viable and allow them to grow along with new players while they worked towards other things. That would be a good change if not done at the cost of the ability of weapons that players have to work for. Really, why ever bother getting anything new if it's going to work exactly as well as what you already have? Instead of grinding for upgrades, the game would be grinding for nothing.

Edited by (PS4)ElZilcho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

All in all, as long as you invest time into your weapon, I think all weapons should be equal(After and only after time is invested, at the start a stock MR8 weapon should be better than an MR4 which should be better than a MR0, but with time they should all balance out). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really, why ever bother getting anything new if it's going to work exactly as well as what you already have?

 

This is a common argument against equal gear balance.  But the thing is, people will get new weapons because they want variety.  Other guns should perform differently.  They get new guns for fun, not because they need to.

 

Most infantry weapons in Planetside 2 perform about equally.  Do you think everyone uses starter gear?  Most people don't, simply because it's different.  Not because it's more powerful.

 

Of course, most people gravitate towards weapons that are more powerful, but that's why you make weapons balanced, and instead make all weapons feel powerful, and diverse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am insulted that this is a topic about low rank weapons that start out bad but can become ridiculously good if they're crit based and require a few forma to reach full potential, and it doesn't bring up how that's exactly the Grakata.

Edited by LukeAura
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some insist that Warframe is already using a tier-based system to enforce weapon progression.  It's unclear whether this is actually DE's intent or if this is merely a result of DE's sloppy balancing processes; expensive research weapons like the Spectra and Flux rifle remain exceedingly weak, while low mastery rank weapons like akbolto and galatine are among some of the most powerful weapons in the game.

 

I personally don't think there should be any gear progression in the game.  An mk-1 braton should be as usable as a boltor prime.  It means that for the veteran player, there's far more choice available than if gear were balanced according to tiers.  That's obviously not the case now, and some insist that there should be a select few weapons you use at lategame.

 

But there's a way to please both camps.  To make early-game weapons perform poorly until you invest in them.  Doing so with formas and potatos would bring them up to the level of soma and synapse.  How would this be done, you ask?

 

Critical strikes.  Currently, crit is often the culprit for many weapons being overpowered; the synapse and soma scale ridiculously well when invested in while being relatively balanced at base.  Did you know the Tetra and Soma have identical DPSes when unmodded?  Yet when modded, the Soma beats the Tetra with a whopping 6,000 DPS.  And that's because of how crit scales.

 

The solution would be to move crit, as a stat, onto starter gear, while endgame gear has superior base damage but no crit.  This means that you hardly need a few formas to make prime gear shine, while if an mk1-braton strikes your fancy you're just a potato and some formas away from taking it to the dark sectors.

 

Of course, you can still potato endgame gear to squeeze out a little performance from it, but you won't be getting quite as much as you would if you were putting that investment in a weaker weapon.

 

This means the Lato, Skana and Mk-1 Braton would have the best crit in the game, while weapons like Soma and Boltor prime would have next to no crit chance or damage.  At base, weapons like primes would perform well, and scale better with just damage and elements.  But despite their inferior base damage, early gear would ramp up when fully slotted, and perform about equally well as prime gear.

 

TL;DR Use crit to allow early game weapons to scale well with investment, while rebalancing "high-tier" gear to start off stronger at base, and taper off with investment.

This doesn't address the problem of exponential weapon damage growth over time for a player.  At the start you have weak weapons and no mods to reinforce them.  Over time you acquire damage mods and you can make your weapons stronger.  At the same time you have more and more powerful weapons available to you due to Mastery Rank and access to Clan Tech.  On top of all that you become able to afford to max your base damage mods and acquire endgame mods (such as split chamber, critical delay and hammer shot, blaze, etc) and your weapons get even stronger, so strong that they trivialize all the normal content in the game while the new player struggles to clear the solar system, especially if RNG screws them over mod-wise.  Some fundamental rebalancing is needed to smooth the power curve and make weapons less ridiculous in endgame.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't personally like making crit only viable for low tier stuff, but there definitely needs to be something done for weapon balance that make the low tier weapons useful even late game (and make things like soma less Obvious Choice for highest level missions), as currently the low tier weapons are just "that weapon I haven't been able to get rid of yet because it doesn't do its job" instead of "that weapon that doesn't fit my play style".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a common argument against equal gear balance.  But the thing is, people will get new weapons because they want variety.  Other guns should perform differently.  They get new guns for fun, not because they need to.

 

Most infantry weapons in Planetside 2 perform about equally.  Do you think everyone uses starter gear?  Most people don't, simply because it's different.  Not because it's more powerful.

 

Of course, most people gravitate towards weapons that are more powerful, but that's why you make weapons balanced, and instead make all weapons feel powerful, and diverse.

 

I think you're neglecting several things.

 

Players can already use different weapons for fun and variety. The only players that don't already do this when they want to are the ones that are obsessed with stats and DPS. I take guns that I find fun to use, that may not have the best numbers, all the time. I have a soma, I have a boltor prime, I use a status build grinlok unless it's time to play extra super cereal, in which case I probably take the latron prime for crit headshots. If someone else doesn't just use what they like, that's their problem and not the game's. Which ties in closely with the next issue...

 

There will always be a "best gun." Unless everything is statistically identical, something will have an advantage. People obsessed with stats will use that gun. Your changes may result in a different "best gun" but will ultimately change nothing about people using the same equipment. It will not create more variety, it will just change the names. If things are statistically identical, then there is no variety by default; a different gun will have the same effect as painting the same gun a different color. Neither is interesting or provides any fun or strategic value. There simply is not a way to have this many weapons with different stats and keep them all equal. Somebody will find a difference and people will exploit it, no matter how small it is.

 

It's also worth noting that this change will have little to no effect on things like the boltor prime, penta, brakk, and marelok. They are already raw damage powerhouses. It really just guts the soma, synapse, and bows. The synapse is already a very expensive clan research weapon (weak research weapons already being a problem you mention) and the bows are more difficult to use with lower ammo capacity than normal, hitscan guns.

 

Prime Access and prime trading have already devalued prestige weapons entirely. Other high tier weapons are just available from the market, so nobody is impressed when you have one. Nobody feels more accomplished for getting to rank six and getting a soma, because damn near everybody has done it or is capable of doing it. The whole point of getting prime weapons is because they are (in most cases) better than their normal counterparts. Once again, if they weren't why wouldn't you go for run after run to get the parts? Why have a boltor prime when the normal boltor will get the same end results with its added crit and everybody will just assume you bought the thing anyway? "Because I just want to use this other gun." someone will say. We have already established they can do this, no changes required.

 

This is not a competitive game. I mentioned Call of Duty because it is samey and boring because of its attempts at balance, something that should be avoided. You mentioned Planetside because people use other equipment that doesn't necesarily make them more or less effective. Unlike both of these, Warframe is not a competitive game. A new player does not fight against a seasoned player on uneven terms. The conclave point system prevents this from happening, should they even decide to make use of the completely optional duelling room. Making all the guns "balanced" is entirely unnecessary because the AI enemies will never complain and also scale past where the devs say the balance ends and into what, for most players, is effectively infinity.

 

I agree that the starter weapons should be improved so they can grow with players, and I think crit chance and damage may be one way to accomplish that, but that's it. There's no reason to downgrade the current high end weapons in the process of making the junk weapons last longer for new players or be viable in higher leveled content.

Edited by (PS4)ElZilcho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am insulted that this is a topic about low rank weapons that start out bad but can become ridiculously good if they're crit based and require a few forma to reach full potential, and it doesn't bring up how that's exactly the Grakata.

 

The Grakata is indeed a solid weapon, but even though it has the best procs per second, it just can't compete with a Soma or Boltor prime even when fully modded.  There's only so many procs you need, I don't think they stack, even in the case of viral procs.  I could be wrong, though.

 

This doesn't address the problem of exponential weapon damage growth over time for a player.  At the start you have weak weapons and no mods to reinforce them.  Over time you acquire damage mods and you can make your weapons stronger.  At the same time you have more and more powerful weapons available to you due to Mastery Rank and access to Clan Tech.  On top of all that you become able to afford to max your base damage mods and acquire endgame mods (such as split chamber, critical delay and hammer shot, blaze, etc) and your weapons get even stronger, so strong that they trivialize all the normal content in the game while the new player struggles to clear the solar system, especially if RNG screws them over mod-wise.  Some fundamental rebalancing is needed to smooth the power curve and make weapons less ridiculous in endgame.

 

This is indeed a problem.  But I feel it's a separate issue to this, and should be tackled at the same time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We already have an example of a mechanic that turn low mastery rank weapon into a higher mastery one with better stat - Nikana/Dragon Nikana conversion blueprint.

 

The idea of all weapons should be equal is interesting but it goes against the usual gear progression found in many ARPGs. Players are driven toward better weapon/ better stat  as a reward for getting into higher difficulty of the game. This aspect of loot in Warframe is lacking but I will not touch it since it isn't the point of this topic.

 

Conversion BP can be used on other weapon as well, conceptually. Using Braton as a component + other materials and turn it into 'Affix' Braton with stat based on higher mastery rank. This will allow low mastery rank weapon to grow with the player as he climb toward higher mastery rank. However, players still need to master other weapons to reach higher mastery rank so crafting and playing with new weapons is still playing a large part in the game.

 

To make it even better, upon using ConversionBP player should be able to choose which stat he wants to increase or add into the weapon. More damage, faster firerate, better reload, additional elemental damage, etc. All of these choices should be weighted in order to create balance according to mastery rank.

 

The good?

- Expanding lategame arsenal. Imagine using M10 Braton that can compete with Soma.

- No need to rely on mods.

- A way to customized your weapon to be unique. Braton that shoot ice? Awesome.

- Potential material and credit dump.

 

The bad?

- Need a lot more slots to hold all these stuff.

- Many players will see this as moneygrab since slots aren't free.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nikana situation is more because of the store confusion. It was not the initial plan, it was a necessary change because the listings were bad and people spent plat.

 

But I'm curious about some parts of your ideas and hope you might be able to explain some things.

 

Using Braton as a component + other materials and turn it into 'Affix' Braton with stat based on higher mastery rank.
player should be able to choose which stat he wants to increase or add into the weapon.
Expanding lategame arsenal. Imagine using M10 Braton that can compete with Soma.

I don't think spending resources and blueprints to make a braton match the soma actually expands the arsenal. You end up with the same results coming out of a different set of polygons. I assume you have at least a few MP3s. Imagine if they were all the same file but with a different title attached. Now imagine I give you fifty more copies of that same file, all with different titles. Have I actually expanded your collection of music if it's more copies of the same song?

 

How will you stop weapons from becoming samey and what's to stop someone from upgrading their soma to M12 and having it totally outclass the Braton again?

 

No need to rely on mods.
A way to customized your weapon to be unique. Braton that shoot ice? Awesome.

Doesn't this harshly limit your weapon to being only good against certain factions? It sounds like a permanent customization, and once you've permanently customized your braton to be magnetic, are you going to craft and rank up a different one for use against the Grineer and Infested? You can already make a Braton that shoots ice with an ice damage mod. Wouldn't your idea basically result in a permanently affixed ice mod that can only be altered by dumping more resources and credits into the gun?

 

Potential material and credit dump.

Only for old players that have a huge surplus. With continuing cuts to the rewards (infestation missions are the last I noticed, capped at 10000) and difficulty increases (lots of new players struggle with interception) it will punish them harshly for chosing the wrong customizations and they will need to grind and grind, which is already a problem, just to make it through the game. Having a surplus of credits and materials doesn't harm you in any way, nor are they a burden to store, so somewhere to dump them is unneeded.

 

However, players still need to master other weapons to reach higher mastery rank so crafting and playing with new weapons is still playing a large part in the game.

If they still have to craft and level up other weapons to use weapons with better stats, why do we not just give those new weapons the better stats? Your idea doesn't really change the fact that Weapon A can have drastically better stats than Weapon B. Everything is still not equal, it's just messy and roundabout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Nikana situation is more because of the store confusion. It was not the initial plan, it was a necessary change because the listings were bad and people spent plat.

But I'm curious about some parts of your ideas and hope you might be able to explain some things.

I don't think spending resources and blueprints to make a braton match the soma actually expands the arsenal. You end up with the same results coming out of a different set of polygons. I assume you have at least a few MP3s. Imagine if they were all the same file but with a different title attached. Now imagine I give you fifty more copies of that same file, all with different titles. Have I actually expanded your collection of music if it's more copies of the same song?

How will you stop weapons from becoming samey and what's to stop someone from upgrading their soma to M12 and having it totally outclass the Braton again?

Doesn't this harshly limit your weapon to being only good against certain factions? It sounds like a permanent customization, and once you've permanently customized your braton to be magnetic, are you going to craft and rank up a different one for use against the Grineer and Infested? You can already make a Braton that shoots ice with an ice damage mod. Wouldn't your idea basically result in a permanently affixed ice mod that can only be altered by dumping more resources and credits into the gun?

Only for old players that have a huge surplus. With continuing cuts to the rewards (infestation missions are the last I noticed, capped at 10000) and difficulty increases (lots of new players struggle with interception) it will punish them harshly for chosing the wrong customizations and they will need to grind and grind, which is already a problem, just to make it through the game. Having a surplus of credits and materials doesn't harm you in any way, nor are they a burden to store, so somewhere to dump them is unneeded.

If they still have to craft and level up other weapons to use weapons with better stats, why do we not just give those new weapons the better stats? Your idea doesn't really change the fact that Weapon A can have drastically better stats than Weapon B. Everything is still not equal, it's just messy and roundabout.

The idea is based on multiple problems.

A. Number of viable weapons in lategame is limited. You don't see anyone carrying Braton in 30 minutes T3 void survival.

B. A player's preference plays a large part in PvE game. The more choices the game can offer, the better.

The keyword here is to create more choices, creating more equals among weapons. Equal doesn't mean it's the same. It can be done in 2 ways.

A. Conversion BP convert weapon into higher rank with predetermined statistics.

B. Conversion BP convert weapon into higher mastery rank and allow modification.

Of course, the first one is easier to balance but I think it's rather fixed, the weapon doesn't feel that it's my own. It lacks uniqueness. When it lacks said property, it also offers no attachment. That's why I prefer modifying stat or adding properties. Properties that were added is by choice. Player that makes said choices must be fully aware of what one is doing. The same situation with Forma modifies polarity slot. Doesn't Loki that use perma-invisibility build corners himself into using just invisibility? If you worry that much just allowing weapon to be retooled into different stat through BP.

Moreover, what stopping you from upgrade M10 Braton into MR12? Also, you are misunderstanding same and equal. Upgrading Braton to M10 doesn't mean it's going to be the same as Soma. They still handled differently and through careful balance.

My view on material/credit is different from you. Right now the game doesn't use crafting to it's full potential. We have large amount of excess material stored in the inventory. Even new players have will have excess ferrite within a few Apollodorus survival runs. So it's a problem in my view. We need more things to craft and this is one way to do so. Another one is perhaps mod crafting concept that has been proposed for ages.

 

Hell, we could do with Higher MR version of weapon BP dropped from leader enemies

Edited by neKroMancer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doesn't Loki that use perma-invisibility build corners himself into using just invisibility?

No. Not at all. With the current system, that Loki can switch out mods whenever they like. With your "build a Braton into an ice Braton" plan, the ice damage can not be removed without rebuilding the weapon again. Unless your idea still uses mods (which doesn't make any sense because you said it would make it not rely on the mod system). If your plan still uses mods, it's just a huge hassle for exactly the same results as the current system. It changes nothing.

 

 

 

We have large amount of excess material stored in the inventory.

No, we don't. This is just false. What you don't understand is that there is no "excess material." There is no problem. These imaginary things just sit there, not going bad, not hurting anything, and having no impact on the game at all. How many nanospores do you have? How does having that many nanospores harm you and cause a problem?

 

Your plan doesn't even avoid this outcome. Even with your plan you will one day reach the maximum mastery rank (which no weapon can be upgraded past) and make the ideal build, and then you will once again have nothing to spend materials on and they will pile up.

 

 

 

Also, you are misunderstanding same and equal. Upgrading Braton to M10 doesn't mean it's going to be the same as Soma. They still handled differently and through careful balance.

 

This really illustrates the problem with this, and just about every other, "make all the weapons equal" thread: You have no idea how to do that.

 

Someone says "I want all the guns to be equal" and proposes that the Braton should be equal to/as effective as/as good as the Soma, but no one ever lays out the stats that would make that happen. They expect someone else to do it for them. They don't even describe how the weapons will be judged to ensure equality.

 

What are the standards by which the weapons will be compared? You need to show it with numbers. Video games run on numbers. Provide an example of two guns that would, in practice, be equal, to prove your idea is good. I made a thread on how to make the death marks better, and I provided both numbers and justification for those numbers. Do the same.

 

Show me the stats of a Braton and Soma which are completely different, yet equal. No, it's not DE's job to figure it out for you. It's your idea.

 

Show me a Lato that's as good as the Penta and I'll support you. Until then, it's just another half-baked "I want my pet gun to be da best" proposal.

Edited by (PS4)ElZilcho
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. Not at all. With the current system, that Loki can switch out mods whenever they like. With your "build a Braton into an ice Braton" plan, the ice damage can not be removed without rebuilding the weapon again. Unless your idea still uses mods (which doesn't make any sense because you said it would make it not rely on the mod system). If your plan still uses mods, it's just a huge hassle for exactly the same results as the current system. It changes nothing.

 

 

 

No, we don't. This is just false. What you don't understand is that there is no "excess material." There is no problem. These imaginary things just sit there, not going bad, not hurting anything, and having no impact on the game at all. How many nanospores do you have? How does having that many nanospores harm you and cause a problem?

 

Your plan doesn't even avoid this outcome. Even with your plan you will one day reach the maximum mastery rank (which no weapon can be upgraded past) and make the ideal build, and then you will once again have nothing to spend materials on and they will pile up.

 

 

 

 

This really illustrates the problem with this, and just about every other, "make all the weapons equal" thread: You have no idea how to do that.

 

Someone says "I want all the guns to be equal" and proposes that the Braton should be equal to/as effective as/as good as the Soma, but no one ever lays out the stats that would make that happen. They expect someone else to do it for them. They don't even describe how the weapons will be judged to ensure equality.

 

What are the standards by which the weapons will be compared? You need to show it with numbers. Video games run on numbers. Provide an example of two guns that would, in practice, be equal, to prove your idea is good. I made a thread on how to make the death marks better, and I provided both numbers and justification for those numbers. Do the same.

 

Show me the stats of a Braton and Soma which are completely different, yet equal. No, it's not DE's job to figure it out for you. It's your idea.

 

Show me a Lato that's as good as the Penta and I'll support you. Until then, it's just another half-baked "I want my pet gun to be da best" proposal.

Huh, extremely aggressive aren't you?

A. When I said this doesn't relies on mods, it meant the system can upgrade your weapon base stat without using one. You can still putting your usual mods on weapons after upgrade their rank. Does Nikana>Dragon Nikana conversion disable mod for Dragon Nikana? Just double base stat to justify it being upgrade from rank4 to rank8, nothing more, nothing less. Your obsession with my ice Braton is rather strong but yes, it you modify it to do so then it is your choice. It's either permanent or adjustable, that's debatable. With the current trend among shooter RPG of ARPG, adjustable stat seems to be working fine as long as there is a cost attached to it.

B. So, having 2 million nanospore isn't a problem for you? Crafting isn't a really working part of the game yet at the moment if we have this much stuff sitting in our inventory when everyone busy finding Orokin cell or Argon crystal.

We need more stuff to craft. This is a part of it.

If you don't see this as a problem then I can't really convince you anymore.

C. With balance as screwed as it is, I don't think anyone can show you spreadsheet that make a pistol working equally to grenade launcher that miraculously carry 540 spare grenade without extremely modified stat. Which when happen you will probably shout "NERFER" halfway reading it. Would you like Penta to carry just 5 spare with special ammo drop? That's just about right, imo. However, that Scott's job to ruin Penta and make it actually a grenade launcher in the future.

Also, Soma and Braton can be made equal through stat modification if we have weigthed stat. Theoretical DPS? Real DPS which thrown in accuracy into the equation? Ammo efficiency? Ease of use? Other baneficial properties? The list can go on with a few pages worth of number and calculation and I probably won't satisfied you since it's my ideal that probably clash with yours just like the idea that 2 million nanospore isn't a problem. I DO NOT intend to make this system just for Braton as you had pointed your finger at me. This should make all the things like Strun or Burston, Lato or Sicarus, Skana and dual Skana to be viable in lategame as well.

I don't know where did you come up with "I want my gun to be the best" accusation. Using Braton was merely an example. Are you going to accuse me of wanting Strun, Burston, Lato, Sicarus, Skana, and Dual Skana to be "da best" too.

Moreover, no one would read it. I used to do that but, really, it doesn't work like with the forum and you get an instantly branded with "NERFER" whenever you tamper with weapon stat to find balance through number. The forum exploded and the topic spiraled out of the original intent. That is a story for another topic.

I proposed the concept that allowing existing mechanic and weapon to be expand the range of viable lategame weapon. If DE already has MR-related balance sheet somewhere in Scott's PC then they can use that to balance all weapons to perform equally based on their categories. Or just put those weighted stat into the game and allow us to play with it ourselves.

Discussion is good but if you intend not to listen and start making accusation then we're done here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm frank. If something is good, I call it good. If something has problems, I point them out. If an idea is half-baked, I pick it apart. Mincing words only obscures the message.

 

A)

As with other plans to upgrade weapons (e.g. Braton --> Braton mk 2 with better stats), I don't see the difference between doing this and just making a different gun. This is also where the pet gun problem comes from. You don't want to use a different gun, you want to use this gun, one you like, and have it be just as good as these other guns that don't look the way you want them to. I think it's dumb. It's a sentimental attachment to a little pile of polygons.

 

I also don't think upgrading the stats creates more choice. Instead, it invalidates making a choice at all. If every gun is just as good as every other gun, you could pick blindly and it won't effect the outcome of your game. It ceases to be an actual, strategic choice. If someone can't handle a switch from fully auto to semi auto, or from hitscan to projectile travel, I don't think they're good enough to be playing the "high level content" that they want all guns to be viable for. As long as there's at least a couple of each type that are really good, then the niche is covered.

 

B)

No. Why would it? That's ridiculous and stupid. It's a number in a videogame I never even look at, but to compare nanospore counts with friends and laugh about it. They don't harm me in any way just by sitting in my inventory. Just crafting more stuff doesn't fix anything, because you'll still end up crafting everything eventually.

 

I actually think one of DE's problems is that they just add more stuff. Did someone really ask for the karak? The tetra? They're just sort of there. It's great if you like them, but they don't really stand out as anything. It's false variety to just have more guns.

 

C)

That's my point. The weapons simply can't be made equal. It's futile. Someone will find something that puts one above another. I've referenced it before, but go look at weapon stats for Battlefield or Call of Duty on Symthic.com. It's samey trash across the board and people still complain about one thing being better than another because of a 0.01 difference in time to kill.

 

The ability to mod weapons will always lead to good stats being exploited. The only way to ever make them equal is to actually make all the stats the same and just make weapons different skins. Look at the sniper rifles in this game. You could buff them into being the best per-shot damage in the game, make them deal three times the damage of the next most powerful weapon, but they'd still be completely impractical in 95% of the missions just because of how the game is played. They still won't be good for crowds, and the combat just doesn't happen at ranges that long. Separate but equal is never actually equal.

 

I never said it would be just for the braton. The braton was just an example for both of us. It was a challenge to illustrate your own example, in action. If you can't dream up numbers for two guns, you can't expect DE to do it for all of them.

 

The game isn't balanced, and isn't intended to be balanced, past level 40. Damn near everything is viable late game as it is, as far as clearing the star chart is concerned. On a long enough timeline, even a tiny difference in stats or practicality will make one gun the best and "imbalanced."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grakata is indeed a solid weapon, but even though it has the best procs per second, it just can't compete with a Soma or Boltor prime even when fully modded.  There's only so many procs you need, I don't think they stack, even in the case of viral procs.  I could be wrong, though.

If the proc is still active, another viral proc will reset the duration (also known as doing nothing). If the proc expires, and you hit them with another viral proc, it will halve their current health again. It's technically possible to kill with just viral, but it'd be pretty tedious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm frank. If something is good, I call it good. If something has problems, I point them out. If an idea is half-baked, I pick it apart. Mincing words only obscures the message.

 

A)

As with other plans to upgrade weapons (e.g. Braton --> Braton mk 2 with better stats), I don't see the difference between doing this and just making a different gun. This is also where the pet gun problem comes from. You don't want to use a different gun, you want to use this gun, one you like, and have it be just as good as these other guns that don't look the way you want them to. I think it's dumb. It's a sentimental attachment to a little pile of polygons.

 

I also don't think upgrading the stats creates more choice. Instead, it invalidates making a choice at all. If every gun is just as good as every other gun, you could pick blindly and it won't effect the outcome of your game. It ceases to be an actual, strategic choice. If someone can't handle a switch from fully auto to semi auto, or from hitscan to projectile travel, I don't think they're good enough to be playing the "high level content" that they want all guns to be viable for. As long as there's at least a couple of each type that are really good, then the niche is covered.

 

B)

No. Why would it? That's ridiculous and stupid. It's a number in a videogame I never even look at, but to compare nanospore counts with friends and laugh about it. They don't harm me in any way just by sitting in my inventory. Just crafting more stuff doesn't fix anything, because you'll still end up crafting everything eventually.

 

I actually think one of DE's problems is that they just add more stuff. Did someone really ask for the karak? The tetra? They're just sort of there. It's great if you like them, but they don't really stand out as anything. It's false variety to just have more guns.

 

C)

That's my point. The weapons simply can't be made equal. It's futile. Someone will find something that puts one above another. I've referenced it before, but go look at weapon stats for Battlefield or Call of Duty on Symthic.com. It's samey trash across the board and people still complain about one thing being better than another because of a 0.01 difference in time to kill.

 

The ability to mod weapons will always lead to good stats being exploited. The only way to ever make them equal is to actually make all the stats the same and just make weapons different skins. Look at the sniper rifles in this game. You could buff them into being the best per-shot damage in the game, make them deal three times the damage of the next most powerful weapon, but they'd still be completely impractical in 95% of the missions just because of how the game is played. They still won't be good for crowds, and the combat just doesn't happen at ranges that long. Separate but equal is never actually equal.

 

I never said it would be just for the braton. The braton was just an example for both of us. It was a challenge to illustrate your own example, in action. If you can't dream up numbers for two guns, you can't expect DE to do it for all of them.

 

The game isn't balanced, and isn't intended to be balanced, past level 40. Damn near everything is viable late game as it is, as far as clearing the star chart is concerned. On a long enough timeline, even a tiny difference in stats or practicality will make one gun the best and "imbalanced."

Your first point is already made false by melee2.0. Before this system, among three dozen of melee weapons, we had three weapons that were useable ; Orthos, Orthos Prime, and Galatine. Zoren was for coptering. Right now we have more weapons that can be used and players are happy about it. Staff, single-handed sword, etc. are now viable choices. Comparing four weapons to three dozen, I don't think it will ever go back.

Now, what do we see around lv40 - Soma, Penta/Ogris, Paris prime, AkaMagnus, Phage? I don't remember seeing Burston, Braton prime, Braton vandal, Strun, Strun Wraith, etc. for a very long time. Now if you think having to choose among 5-10 weapons to play is better compared to 50 weapons. I think you have to rethink about this subject again.

The second point - you don't seem to see the problem here but I disagree. What is the point of having them litter around the map then? To make nanospore leaderboard? If the amount of some materials can reach to point that I can make Fomorian ship all by myself then it better has a BP for that ship for me. And yes, DE can add more thing into the game. Doesn't add conversion BP consider "more"?

The last point is something I have seen a lot of argument. If all items aren't equal in an objective way then there are no variety. The game must be balanced to make our choices matter. Choosing between frame, weapon, and mods that synergize well is a great deal of fun. Also, I remind you that equal is different to same. Equal means you take something out and put something back in. Weapon A is comfortable to use but deal less damage. Weapon B can deal more damage but suffer more recoil. Weapon C can shoot missiles that annihilates an entire battalion of Grineer but can not replenish ammo.

Balance can be achieved and it makes the game fun and profitable. Tiering is already a good start to balance the game based on certain statistics tied to each tier. Not doing it and claim that the game is "intended" to be imbalance is going to hurt the game, especially a collectible game like Warframe, in a long run. Why should I buy slot to keep weaponA if weaponB totally invalidates the reason it exists? Why should I buy cosmetic for weapon that I will never use because of poor stat? Balance can make money and therefore should be pursued by any company that desires profit from F2P game economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are plenty of viable weapons, it's called building correctly.

 

 

 

See this topic as to why the above is a really bad argument.

 

https://forums.warframe.com/index.php?/topic/217158-plea-for-top-down-weapon-balancing-use-polarities-to-make-high-masteryclan-tech-weapons-appealing/

 

Building correctly? Putting catalyst and 6 Formas on tier 1 weapon does not make it better compared to higher MR weapon. I ask again, how often do you see Braton in high level survival defense? Poor base stat is the problem that holding these weapons back from being useful since mods work in percentage. If you put 100% damage mod on 1 slash damage then you got 2 slash damage. Nothing can change that, no "correctly building" for these weapons can suddenly make them shines. 

 

Also, the link you kindly provided is full of yourself trying to explain why this is wrong. I disagree with most of it anyway. I think tier isn't bad way to achieve balance within said tier and between tier but that limits what we can carry into the mission. Also, upgrading weapon into a better tier and still bound by tier balancing is still good.

 

Honestly ; "And yet, we actually have a lot of weapons. Their stats are not fixed because you can boost them."?

Don't make me laugh.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it's a turd and you polish it, it's still a turd.

What needs to seriously change is a fundamental rework of the numbers inflation that we've been experiencing for a year now.

Then we can focus on weapon diversity and function differentiation. Until then, that won't happen.

Functionally different weapons are few and far between in the Warframe arsenal. While melee 2.0 changed all of that, the weakness of weapons (that shouldn't be nearly as weak as they are) hasn't been addressed, and vice versa.

The difficulty curve is completely out of whack, and has been for quite some time due to this demand for something that works endlessly in endless defense or other endless modes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't see beginner weapons in high level areas because they are beginner weapons. Tiers, tiers are how games work. Correctly building, as in using the right elements for areas, increasing damage etc etc. That topic just highlights why your side of the argument does not work, no ifs no buts.

 

Weapons are set in the tiers they are in, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, this is how the game works and how many heavily successful games work. Any game that has beginner weaponry being used at the end of a game is a poor one with 0 progression, that's just fact.

 

We have a lot of weapons, this is a fact. Can you boost their stats? Do we have a lot of viable options? Yes. Do you even Warframe? Do you even know how to build weapons?

So you don't have any convincing reason to make me believe that we should have 5 weapons at lategame instead of 50. All you did was repeat your word and treat it like a gospel - because I said so therefore it must be true.

That's pointless, imo. Neither reasonable nor convincing, not one bit.

What I have been proposing thus far doesn't break your beloved tier system. It works based on tier mechanic/conversion BP to expand what we can use and allow weapons to grow with us through mastery rank. Tell me why is that bad.

Does that make tier useless? No.

Does it lessen the choice that we have? No.

Does it messed with your precious high-end weapon? No.

Does it lower DE revenue? No.

Do I understand how tier works? I have been playing ARPGs for a very long time and see tiering in these games. None of them can break the pattern. Moreover, comparing usual number of weapons in these games and Warframe seems to break your illusion of having 'many' weapons in Warframe. We probably have less than 1/100 of usual ARPG due to fixed stat and lack of suffix/prefix. If you want 'many' weapons then I suggest looking at Borderlands 2 for an excellent example. That's what I call great variety of weapon.

Do you understand the flaw of our loot/weapon system? Do you see why it breeds boredom among players?

You see the flaw but insist that we should keep the flaw out of principle.

That's unhealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what we could do instead of telling new players to buy a potato and gratz you are now an end game hero, instead we could release improved versions of low tier weapons that people like. We can even slap a name on top of the new weapons such as prime!

 

 

 

 

 

 

End game weapons need to be balanced. There's already a system to allow variation in the game while still having progression.

Edited by Oishii
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You don't see beginner weapons in high level areas because they are beginner weapons. Tiers, tiers are how games work. Correctly building, as in using the right elements for areas, increasing damage etc etc. That topic just highlights why your side of the argument does not work, no ifs no buts.

 

Weapons are set in the tiers they are in, it doesn't matter whether you agree or not, this is how the game works and how many heavily successful games work. Any game that has beginner weaponry being used at the end of a game is a poor one with 0 progression, that's just fact.

 

We have a lot of weapons, this is a fact. Can you boost their stats? Do we have a lot of viable options? Yes. Do you even Warframe? Do you even know how to build weapons?

 

 

Facts and evidence, you should get some. We have more than 5 weapons at lategame. Understanding, whilst difficult for you I know, will come with time. Primary, secondary and melee, we have more than 5 options.

 

 

 

No what you have been suggesting is to make the game have no progression or point to it, no reason to go further than starter weaponry, which are the same broken down arguments from the topic I linked.

 

 

 

 

In games, there is a system of progression. Progression leads to better things, and players end up tiering weaponry. When you have starter weapons doing the same as end-game, then there is no point to a game. There is no "illusion" of having many weapons. There ARE many weapons. The only time there is a limited amount is if you yourself are placing a limit by refusing to take anything that doesn't hit a certain DPS.

 

 

 

Whats unhealthy is to want desperately to remove progression. Whats unhealthy is player obsession with milking every little bit out of the DPS they can then refusing to take anything else. These players then become bored unless doing high level content. 

 

What.  Seriously, what.  You seem to have completely missed the point of most games.  "Progression," a sense of superiority or improvement, is certainly one possibility, but it would be absolutely meaningless without gameplay.  Frankly, I think players would have more fun running around tearing into things with a weapon they loved, one with an aesthetic and sound and rate-of-fire and everything that just clicked for them, than they would saying "hey, I've got the best gun in the game right now, I win."  That's subjective, and I could be in the minority here, but I stand by the sentiment anyway.

 

Besides, I do have a few more rational arguments to support my stance.  Games with linear item progression tend to have, at least technically, tens of thousands of items.  I'm thinking of World of Warcraft specifically here, where there's a new piece of gear for each item slot every level or two until you start grinding dungeons instead.  Each slot has at least one, possibly two models in each relevant armor/weapon type, and each model has at least two or three different stat combinations before adding minor stats.  It's entirely valid to toss aside the weapon you had last level when you get a better one, or to take a sidegrade to one with a better stat pool.  The same goes for a lot of old-style RPGs, where there's no point in holding onto your Wooden Sword when there's a Meteoric Iron +25 to be had.  And even in these games, when players get end-tier or major quest reward items that they like the look of, they honestly tend to rage when the next expansion rolls out and invalidates all of them.  Hell, my old Paladin used his level 20 reward warhammer from level 24 through 46 (Vanilla WoW only) despite seeing several upgrades drop, because it was still hitting hard enough and had too many memories wrapped up in it to just toss away.

 

And that's just one example.  One of WoW's "competitor" games, Star Wars: The Old Republic, actually has player-driven item leveling for a large chunk of its gear.  It's not uncommon at all to see force-user characters using their level 10 lightsaber in Operations encounters because it levels with them.  That's the sort of system the OP has been advocating, and I'll come back to that in a minute.  But Hero Engine MMORPGs are a totally different animal from Warframe because there's no variety in combat style between weapons, only between classes, so let's talk about games closer to home.

 

First, there's Hawken, which gives each of its various mechs a distinctive playstyle and three weapons, with one to start and the others unlocked as the mech levels up (arguably analogous to mod space, but that's a stretch).  The three weapons really aren't all that different, and in fact there are five or six mechs that have identical potential loadouts unlocked in a different order.  Different weapons excel in different situations, naturally, as do different mechs, but any mech can trump any other given the right pilot.  There's no statistical leveling at all, for weapons or chassis, just cosmetic tweaks and greater variety.  Of course there are arguments over balance, what kind of multiplayer game would it be otherwise?  But there are no weapon tiers, and the only progression is diversification instead of pure wall-of-numbers upgrading.

 

Or, and this is the big one, there's TF2.  This is why I threw up my hands at the "games have no point without progression" comment, because TF2 is the definitive counterexample.  Yes, there's a sense of triumph when the RNG - or your achievements - gives you a new toy to play with, and there's always someone out there arguing that such-and-such a loadout is OP or UP or the best or counterproductive or whatever, but that's the extent of progression.  Each class can kill every other class, and they all have ways to counter those kills too.  Items don't level up in TF2, except cosmetically, so they have to all be equally viable.  Considering the mixture of grind and RNG in that game, let alone this one, it would be utterly unfair to tell a new player "hey, your basic Rocket Launcher can't win a head-on fight against that veteran's Direct Hit, so you might as well go home now."  Every weapon has a unique feel, and every weapon can theoretically win any encounter in any mode.  There is no "tiering" in that game, nor should there be, and that's a huge part of why TF2 has stayed so successful.  The gameplay is what matters.  Not the stats.

 

 

I said I'd come back to TOR's item mods in a little, and I meant it.  I can barely believe I'm using that game as an example of something done really well, but their take on mods is very similar to what the OP has suggested.  Weapons and armor continue to be viable as long as you keep investing money, commendation tokens, and/or grinding time in adding more stats to them.  Each class generally has two or three options for mods at each level with different stat balances and minor stats, much like the sidegrades and one-level-above upgrades I talked about from WoW.

 

Now, Warframe already has mods that do similar things, but what the OP is getting at is the introduction of a system that allows players to invest their resources into permanent, if slight, upgrades to weapons they genuinely enjoy playing with.  If you like a "top-tier" gun, fine, good for you.  If you found the Mk1's rate of fire and sound effects were your favorite things ever after all, you can start putting upgrades into its raw numbers to make mods scale better with it too.  I view this system as a collection of point-buy kits, things you could research, or add to boss tables (I know, I know, it's hard enough to get what you're already after, but it's just a thought right now anyway), or something like that.  Each Mastery Rank would allow you to put another kit into each gun, and each kit would give you free choice over which stats to upgrade - and, and here's the big thing. it would be additive rather than percentage-based.  Sure, this is all vague and ill-formed right now, but give me a little time and I can probably come up with a formal system for it.  I wholeheartedly endorse the OP's suggestion - it adds meaning to Mastery Rank that's currently not there, allows players to use whatever weapons they feel like to a much, much larger degree, removes the arrogant "use these weapons or else" attitude surrounding tiering these days, and gives DE another item to sell.  Win-win, no?

 

Need to sort out how the enemies work and how they progress rapidly before touching weaponry.

 

I can't believe I'm admitting this, but we actually agree on something here.  Still, it's clearly for different reasons.  Many weapons are rendered useless by extreme defense scaling - armor is still far and away the worst because of its exponential effect, but raw numbers in shields and health are problematic in their own ways.  This is part of why people feel limited to those five or so primaries and two or three each secondaries and melee weapons.  Yes, you get players who insist on only using the mathematically best builds, but when you get kicked out of scaling content ten, fifteen minutes earlier for using anything but one of those builds due to sheer statistics you can see where the obsession comes from.

 

And before someone brings up 'frame abilities, those fall into the same hole for very similar reasons.  Nobody runs Ash in high-scaling content, and frames like Ember and Volt are similarly rare.  People who don't play Snow Globe Frost or permacloak Loki or max-range Chaos Nyx or one of the other extremely effective builds are considered, not entirely wrongly, to be a liability to the team.  That doesn't mean that people are supposed to use Ash and Ember and Volt as stepping stones to better frames, it means that for whatever combination of scaling and utility some frames simply aren't useful at high levels, and that's a flaw and not a feature.  The Warframes are central to the game, and telling people they "can't" or "shouldn't" use the playstyle they enjoy against advanced content is unacceptable in a game like this.  Yes, players need to adapt to the situation, and not all 'frames are effective against all targets.  That's fine, but that's not what I mean by "playstyle."  Why should someone who, say, runs Nekros for area control and the lich aesthetic be subject to ridicule for not maxing out Desecrate at the expense of all else?

 

I realize that 'frames are a tangent, but I believe that argument is still relevant.  Take the playstyle comment of just a moment ago and switch it around - why should a veteran archer feel compelled to switch to a light machine gun in order to "compete?"  Why does everyone get ordered to break out the grenade launchers and hide on boxes against Infested?  Increasing the viability of other weapons, either directly through straight-up buffs or gradually through player-controlled evolution, would work to break that pattern and make it so that people didn't constantly feel like there were "only five weapons" at endgame.  Sure, some players would always choose the mathematically best option, but - especially with player-driven item enhancements like the OP suggested - there would be ways to bypass that, to make skill with a preferred combat style more important, or at the very least to severely complicate the number-crunching that goes into Best Building.

 

And before you go rambling on about progression again, Prime/Wraith/Vandal weapons would still be a straight upgrade and in fact could get a direct buff of their own if a gear-leveling system was introduced to make them more enticing right out of the gate.  As for other weapons, the "progression" you so desperately crave would be vertical, within the weapon, rather than lateral, between what a player has now and the "better" weapon.  Players would now be happier to hit the next Mastery rank and upgrade what they have.  I'll admit there's a flaw here - if you can just powerlevel the Mk1 or the Lato or whatever, why would a player ever want to buy something new? - but the existing Mastery system actually plays in this idea's favor.  The player would need to experiment in order to come home to their favorite weapon, and through experimentation they could quite easily find one they prefer even more.  And let's be honest, a lot of weapons in this game have such a tremendous coolness factor built in that they'd still get plenty of market traffic.

 

Questions-comments-concerns?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...