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

Apparently 'being in the minority' means 'everyone agrees with you except two guys.'

 

Also, not wanting to deal with completely unreasonable people anymore is apparently the same thing as admitting you were completely wrong.

 

Learn something new every day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, Phaenur, same challenge to you as NikolaiLev, SableSonata and neKroMancer have already failed:

Show me numbers for a MK1 Braton and a Soma that are "equally viable" and describe the standards on which they are being compared. The MK1 also can't be totally OP on the first couple planets due to your changes, as it's the gun everybody starts with.

 

 

The problem with all of these ideas is that no two weapons will be equally viable unless they are statistically identical. That's just the way it is. A damage system where certain types are more effective will favor weapons with those types. Even two weapons that are completely identical in every way, but one is weighted more toward puncture and the other toward slash, has an inequality: the big enemies in void (heavy gunners, moas, and their drones) all have a puncture weakness. The hypothetical gun with the puncture damage is the best choice. Even if the advantage of one over the other is small, people will use it. A little bit of efficiency like that will mean one gun runs dry while the other still has shots left. Even saving two or three bullets per enemy means a big difference in the reserves in a survival where you're going to be killing hundreds. This is why I reference games like Call of Duty and Battlefield. The weapons there have miniscule differences but people still call them garbage and OP over a 0.05 second difference in time to kill.

 

Actually balance two or three of them and you might add the first bit of merit to this idea.

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.

Further more, "equal" doesn't mean they are the same... notably, the Karak and the Grakata feel completely different, same with the Boltor or Gorgon. Different behaviour would be enforced, but the weapons would be similarly effective, just in different areas.

 

No progression, the flaw you described gives a big gaping hole of pointlessness to switch weapons. No need to experiment, they can use their weapon from start to end because there is no difference anywhere.

 

Bad arguments are bad arguments, theres a reason he gave up. He knows how flawed the arguments are, you have yet to realise this.

 

Thats ridiculous. People will try out new weapons on shear curiousity. And since different weapons behaved differently, different people will like different ones.

 

A Sniper Rifle and a Shotgun might have the same DPS, but someone who prefers fighting at long Range will probably take the Sniper. 

 

As Zilcho, you do realize that the idea was for weapon stats to increase as you use them? So an initial Mk1 will not be as powerful as a Soma, but it will eventually get there.

 

An interesting alternative is having the "Endgame" weapons be "fixed role" as in they can't be upgraded too much, while starter weapons could be adapted to multiple rolls

Edited by XRAY0128
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, apparently you just haven't played enough games. Progression means progressing in the game, not a sense of superiority or improvement. It is simply progressing in the game. Yes, you are in the minority, people have plenty of fun running around with the guns they like because not every single person is going for highest DPS. Sidegrades are such a bad idea.

 

 

This doesn't help your argument, it goes against it.

 

 

Different game type, does not work the same here. We have tiered weaponry here, we have no need to have people running around with starter guns at end-game because that is not progression. We are playing Warframe, not a rip-off of SWTOR.

 

 

Saw that game and considered getting it, then I read more into it. I saw no progression in the game, which instantly turned me away from it. That sort of thing is what you and your lot want WF to turn into, if it did you'd kill off the majority of players.

 

 

TF2 is about PVP and looks, WF is neither. TF2 is not the definitive counterexample, it is a very, very poor example. TF2 literally has no point to it beyond blowing people up and getting new things, there is no actual progressing in the game. And yes, the basic RL is at a disadvantage against the Direct Hit, there's nothing "unfair" about telling the truth. TF2 does have tiers actually, and it has stayed successful because people like blowing other people up, it's a huge PVP game. Gameplay matters, stats matter, progression matters. Here in WF, progression is needed.

 

 

And you turn WF into a different game where there is no progression and 0 point of playing. Why? Because you have people never changing from their starter weapon, why should they? Why bother with changing weapons if its no different, you just stick with one weapon. Get to end game, on starter weapon. Sounds like a nightmare.

 

 

It is a horrendous system. Not a win-win, it would kill off any sense of progression. This is fact. MR is starting to get meaning with the upgraded weapons (D-Nikana) and I'm sure more will be added. People who go for only highest DPS will say "use this or else". The rest just use what they like (which is why we have a lot of options) and upgrade how they like. Tiering is the best system to go with.

 

 

CC abilities scale better than damage, people who play frames quickly understand whats best and how things work. In terms of Nekros, you can quickly and easily see how bad #4 is in general considering you don't really have any control over them, and Desecrate helps get rid of some of the RNG. By the time you get to high level content, some frames will have advantages over others, that is a fact. By the time you get to high level content, some skills and playstyles just don't cut it, that's also a fact. That is not a personal problem, that is a frame problem and scaling issue. Different issues.

 

 

Given the buff to Bows lately, I wouldn't see people switch to machine guns. Penta is very aoe-effective for the Infested. All weapons are viable until you get to certain levels, they all pale off at some point, some pale off quicker because they are lower tier. Does that make them bad weapons or unusable? No. Both you and the OP need to realise, all weapons are viable.

 

 

No progression, the flaw you described gives a big gaping hole of pointlessness to switch weapons. No need to experiment, they can use their weapon from start to end because there is no difference anywhere.

 

Bad arguments are bad arguments, theres a reason he gave up. He knows how flawed the arguments are, you have yet to realise this.

Progression doesn't limit itself to your definition. Mastery-based upgrade system can be called progression as well. I don't see the problem with the current mastery system that force player to get new weapon and experiment with them to reach higher rank anyway. That means they may get to love new weapons that they might enjoy while have the chance to keep the old one around if they don't like how the new toys work.

It gives us more options and that's good. I don't see why it invalidates progression.

There are more than one way for everything. Don't count your limited imagination and experience as fact.

Get down from your extremely high horse and drop the 'holier than thou' attitude and give us some reasonable arguments why having more lategame weapons is bad. Also, explain why upgrading Braton into MR6 Braton doesn't look like progress 'into better thing' to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know, as much as it feels like I'm beating my head against the wall right now, I'm grateful you replied, Nightman.  It's helped me to confirm what I should have realized going in here - we share functionally no common ground in our visions for what Warframe could be, or for what we want from games in general.  And I'll admit that you and ElZilcho on the other thread have some points about Warframe's infinite scaling that I hadn't considered in sufficient depth, but even there our reactions to it are diametrically opposed.  I see it as, well, as insufficient, as an artificial method of extending the game's longevity for some players and increasing its difficulty for anyone who goes into the endless modes, while you clearly have a different interpretation.

 

As for the game itself, I favor freedom of playstyle over your definition of progression, and you clearly have the exact opposite stance.  There's no need for us to keep arguing with one another since we're never going to convince each other differently barring some miraculous transformation.  I support commenters like Sonata and neKroMancer, you oppose them, and that's basically it.  We'll continue to do so, but attacking one another directly will only be counterproductive.

 

...and now that I've said, I'm still compelled to address your, erm, argument, if only for honor's sake.  Replies are in bold.

No, apparently you just haven't played enough games. Progression means progressing in the game, not a sense of superiority or improvement. It is simply progressing in the game. Yes, you are in the minority, people have plenty of fun running around with the guns they like because not every single person is going for highest DPS. Sidegrades are such a bad idea.

 

Most games use weapon stats as just one metric of progression.  RPGs and campaign modes in other games have at least something pretending to be a plot, for instance, while - as SableSonata has said in another thread - your character is generally constant, iterating on their powers and gradually broadening until they reach whatever the current end state is supposed to be.  And you seem to have some different definition of "sidegrade" from the rest of us - I see a sidegrade as any weapon or other item that has a different balance of power and, when applicable, a different feel, yet can still be used to the same end without being seen by the community at large as "wrong" for advanced content.  If you want examples, reread my original post.

 

 

This doesn't help your argument, it goes against it.

 

Warcraft and games like it have progressive, more or less linear upgrades specifically because they're designed that way.  Each weapon and 'frame in this game has at least a marginally different playstyle, with tweaks to crit, spread, proc, especially rate of fire/fire style (charge, burst, auto, semi-auto, single shot, spread, rocket, grenade...), travel time and arc, and even reload time, not just damage.  If anything, each weapon is more akin to a complete class in some other game, not a +1 Sword to be traded out for a +1/+2 Axe.  Finally, my anecdote about the warhammer also applies to players who ground out the legendary items, or even the highest-tier gear of a given iteration of the game.  There is always resentment from at least some players when they feel pressured to trade out a weapon they worked hard for and like the feel and aesthetic of for something objectively better, and I feel this is one of those places where we simply do not see eye-to-eye on a fundamental issue.

 

 

Different game type, does not work the same here. We have tiered weaponry here, we have no need to have people running around with starter guns at end-game because that is not progression. We are playing Warframe, not a rip-off of SWTOR.

 

You're the only one who mentioned ripping off SW:TOR.  I used it as an example of internal progression done well, nothing more.  You could also reference Mass Effect 2 and 3 here - yes, some guns were simply better than others (looking at you, Widow...) but if you didn't work well with a given weapon's feel and attributes it was still entirely possible to fall back on the other options.  Maybe not as efficient as mastering the new type, but hardly impossible either.  Also, your assumption that using the starter guns out of the beginning of the game is fundamentally flawed is just that, an assumption.  Well, and a personal preference.  Again, we do not and will not agree on this issue and I see no reason to drag it out any further.

 

 

Saw that game and considered getting it, then I read more into it. I saw no progression in the game, which instantly turned me away from it. That sort of thing is what you and your lot want WF to turn into, if it did you'd kill off the majority of players.

 

Hawken is growing rapidly, and so is Warframe.  You refused to play it for the exact reason that I embraced it.  Your assumption that a similar system would destroy the playerbase is unfounded.  It would prune out individuals like you, attract those like me, and generally change the dynamic, but I rather doubt it would be a doomsday scenario.  In fact, the only major problem I foresee is chaos from a radical change, which is the reason why I'm waiting to fully flesh out an idea before I commit to a thread of my own.

 

 

TF2 is about PVP and looks, WF is neither. TF2 is not the definitive counterexample, it is a very, very poor example. TF2 literally has no point to it beyond blowing people up and getting new things, there is no actual progressing in the game. And yes, the basic RL is at a disadvantage against the Direct Hit, there's nothing "unfair" about telling the truth. TF2 does have tiers actually, and it has stayed successful because people like blowing other people up, it's a huge PVP game. Gameplay matters, stats matter, progression matters. Here in WF, progression is needed.

 

Warframe isn't about looks?  Seriously?  Pay attention to the art assets sometime, you might learn something.  Furthermore, TF2 is an excellent example of a case where weapons perform in dramatically different ways and yet are all viable, which was the original reason that I mentioned it.  Take two players of roughly equivalent skill, give one a base weapon and the other anything else, and remove all other variables, and there will be no difference in results between the two.  That's what people refer to when they say a game is "balanced."  You are, however, right that it is, like Hawken, a PvP game rather than Warframe's PvE.  It still stands as an example of the point I am trying to make, which is that mechanics that change the way the game feels to a player should not be locked out of advanced use due to simple numbers.

 

 

And you turn WF into a different game where there is no progression and 0 point of playing. Why? Because you have people never changing from their starter weapon, why should they? Why bother with changing weapons if its no different, you just stick with one weapon. Get to end game, on starter weapon. Sounds like a nightmare.

 

 

Hmm, I don't know why players would ever want to change from a slow-firing assault rifle to a minigun, rocket launcher, composite bow, or railgun.  Or from a semi-auto pistol to a hand cannon or a brace of kunai.  Or, heaven forbid, from an Eastern-style sword to a true katana, or a scythe, or even boxing tape!  This is another case where you make an assumption about player behavior I see as flawed on a fundamental level, and because it relates to the thoughts and actions of people beyond ourselves neither of us can claim to be in the right.  Still, I strongly disagree with your judgment about starter weapons, as should be quite apparent already.

 

It is a horrendous system. Not a win-win, it would kill off any sense of progression. This is fact. MR is starting to get meaning with the upgraded weapons (D-Nikana) and I'm sure more will be added. People who go for only highest DPS will say "use this or else". The rest just use what they like (which is why we have a lot of options) and upgrade how they like. Tiering is the best system to go with.

 

Maybe you have a different definition of tiering, too.  My objection is less to the existence of tiers in and of themselves - people will always find ways to categorize elements of gameplay - and more with the hostility that surrounds using anything but top-tier weaponry in any sort of high-level content.  I'd prefer to address that by raising stats somehow so "low-tier" weapons don't fall off quite so fast and the split is less pronounced, you simply accept it as a fact of life.  As for Mastery Rank upgrades, that's a large part of why I brought up TOR - it provides one example of a system where leveling your character, or even your account as a whole, allows you to continue using the aesthetic and playstyle you want all the way through the endgame.  Yes, there are items that are fundamentally better than your starter lightsaber even when fully modded, but the rate at which they fall off is close to negligible against anything but the newest Heroic Mode content.  Tying internal weapon progression to Mastery in an opt-in manner in a way that essentially makes it possible to "grow" your own Dragon Nikana from start, or even introducing a very similar upgrade system for the many other weapons, would certainly satisfy me.

 

 

CC abilities scale better than damage, people who play frames quickly understand whats best and how things work. In terms of Nekros, you can quickly and easily see how bad #4 is in general considering you don't really have any control over them, and Desecrate helps get rid of some of the RNG. By the time you get to high level content, some frames will have advantages over others, that is a fact. By the time you get to high level content, some skills and playstyles just don't cut it, that's also a fact. That is not a personal problem, that is a frame problem and scaling issue. Different issues.

 

I'm not arguing with any of that.  In fact, you just summarized my point.  You can certainly develop a "most efficient" build or a "most useful" build or whatever you're looking for on basically any 'frame - or weapon - without much trouble, just a little web-browsing or enough experience.  I was using this as another illustration of my point, though, in that some of the content - things like the oxygen RNG (Desecrate) or the sheer weight of fire in Defense maps (Snow Globe) make some 'frames and builds "ideal" and others counterproductive in the late game.  Yes, I could take Ash or Ember or the like into a non-defense mission somewhere outside the void and he'd work fine, and the same could be said for most other "low-tier" gear, but I feel more like that's an artificial limitation considering how little else there is outside of those two mission types that scales.  Furthermore, essentially all of Warframe's metagaming and build discussion is focused around endless missions and most of the community plays those as well, as a direct consequence of the game's primary progression system.  Basically, I've already filled out the solar map, so why aside from nostalgia or curiosity would I want to replay anything "below" me?  And yet I get reamed by the other players for taking anything below top-tier into anything else, so....  Still, what you see as isolated problems with individual 'frames and powers or the infinite scaling mechanic I see as more holistic.  Different perspectives, but I think we actually agree here after all.

 

 

Given the buff to Bows lately, I wouldn't see people switch to machine guns. Penta is very aoe-effective for the Infested. All weapons are viable until you get to certain levels, they all pale off at some point, some pale off quicker because they are lower tier. Does that make them bad weapons or unusable? No. Both you and the OP need to realise, all weapons are viable.

 

You see, though, there's the problem.  There's an assumption that players "should be" using the "ideal" weapons in advanced content, which is certainly understandable.  But by the same token it's also where the "only five guns" nonsense comes from, because there really is a small pool of weapons that's actually practical at the highest-end gameplay, and ironically even players who are only going to 15 minutes for their key can get pretty annoyed with someone not packing the Soma, Phage, Penta, etc.  Melee 2.0's evened a lot of that out with the melee weapons themselves, especially with the amazing boost to survivability blocking can give you, but there's still a schizophrenic scaling curve with ranged weapons, and that's what threads like these are trying to address.

 

 

No progression, the flaw you described gives a big gaping hole of pointlessness to switch weapons. No need to experiment, they can use their weapon from start to end because there is no difference anywhere.

 

I've said this probably half a dozen different times between the first post and this reply, but weapons are not all the same.  I'm sorry, this is probably the one point that's legitimately frustrating me.  Bows are different from grenades are different from rockets are different from hitscan full autos are different from travel-time full autos are different from et cetera.  Many weapons have unique aesthetics, and a not insignificant number of players will pick up weapons - or refuse to - based on looks.  Each melee weapon has either a different style - and thus hit arc - or at least different speed and reach.  Assuming players won't branch out because they can just use the starting gear is, in my opinion, extremely uncharitable to gamers at large, and I think it stems from that same assumption you maintain that starter weapons must always be fundamentally worse than everything else.  Again, we disagree at the most basic level about this, which makes actually debating much harder than it has to be.

 

Bad arguments are bad arguments, theres a reason he gave up. He knows how flawed the arguments are, you have yet to realise this.

 

People don't stop arguing with you because you've won, they stop arguing because of some core disconnect between their view of and for the game and your own.  If you're both chasing each other in circles and repeating the same arguments again and again you get tired, and the only thing other posters' silence proves is that you got the last word.  I'm sorry, that only counts in politics.

 

And as for the examples, I'll agree that I could have done a much better job explaining why I was using them.  That much is clear from your reply.  Hopefully other people will see both those and my clarifications here and grasp my points better.  I'm sadly sure that you won't - not said out of malice, just out of acceptance that we're coming from completely different places here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As for the game itself, I favor freedom of playstyle over your definition of progression, and you clearly have the exact opposite stance.

 

Frankly, so do I.

 

I just don't have a problem taking a weapon that "isn't as good" if it suits me more. I'll never get the same DPS out of a Latron Prime as people can get out of the Boltor Prime or Soma, but I can use the Latron very effectively, so that's good for me. I have both of the others, but when it's time to really go for broke in survival, I still take the Latron. I prefer the Detron and Marelok to the Brakk because I want things that work from a distance. That they work better for me is more important than any nebulous idea of "viability." Hell, I'm even going to be making a new Tysis and putting some forma on it because we figured out a build that reports NAN% status in the arsenal and applies at least three every time you shoot something, then ragdolls dead bodies back into more enmies. I don't care how viable someone says that is, it's just cool.

 

Then again, I also use all sorts of different weapons in Warframe, as I do in just about every game. I just don't support demands to change the rules for vanity. I mean, imagine someone demanding Knights move like Queens in a game of chess just because they like horses. You either get good with the thing that suits you or use something that plays to the numbers. As long as there's a semi-auto rifle, machine gun, bow, etc that can fill a niche in what people consider the "best weapons" then I think it's in a good place.

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

Frankly, so do I.

 

I just don't have a problem taking a weapon that "isn't as good" if it suits me more. I'll never get the same DPS out of a Latron Prime as people can get out of the Boltor Prime or Soma, but I can use the Latron very effectively, so that's good for me. I have both of the others, but when it's time to really go for broke in survival, I still take the Latron. I prefer the Detron and Marelok to the Brakk because I want things that work from a distance. That they work better for me is more important than any nebulous idea of "viability." Hell, I'm even going to be making a new Tysis and putting some forma on it because we figured out a build that reports NAN% status in the arsenal and applies at least three every time you shoot something, then ragdolls dead bodies back into more enmies. I don't care how viable someone says that is, it's just cool.

 

Then again, I also use all sorts of different weapons in Warframe, as I do in just about every game. I just don't support demands to change the rules for vanity. I mean, imagine someone demanding Knights move like Queens in a game of chess just because they like horses. You either get good with the thing that suits you or use something that plays to the numbers. As long as there's a semi-auto rifle, machine gun, bow, etc that can fill a niche in what people consider the "best weapons" then I think it's in a good place.

 

In that case I'll simmer down, since we're less opposed than I thought we were.  What you're describing is exactly the sort of game I enjoy too, and I get your point.  I'd still rather see the "low tier" boosted to at least be closer to the "best weapons" - again, less exact equivalence and more a less pronounced falloff at high levels - and I actually tried to run the numbers in response to your earlier post.  Just going off of what's in-game I couldn't do it because the stats can be so nebulous (Fire Rate and Accuracy are the big offenders here, obviously, but it's hard if not impossible to know ahead of time the exact numbers on procs either, and I feel proc rate would be a good place to start with low-grade weapons).  I know there are more resources and calculators out there, of course, but I've never been much of a number-cruncher.  If someone does take you up on that challenge, good luck to them.  They'll need it.

 

And, well, I guess I might just be more vain than you are then, because TOR's ability to retain your gear in anything but competitive PvP and top-tier raiding content is one of the few things I unreservedly love about that game.  And your comments really have helped me see just how much work this would be to rebalance while still keeping meaningful differences between the weapons, which I definitely hadn't considered enough before.  I'm still not exactly on your side, and I'll keep calling for some sort of equalization, but I'll try to stay more reasonable.  Besides, I'm honestly more interested in establishing a more definitive endgame outside of infinite scaling somewhere anyway, especially after you pointed out how much that interferes with any concept of endgame balance.  A thought for another time, I suppose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An idea from another thread, one that I could find no issue with at all, was the option to re-skin the prime weapons to look like the standard versions. Primes still must be crafted normally, are still better in a lot of cases, but if you want your boltor prime to look like a regular boltor, you can have it. It also doesn't involve a plan to rebalance all the weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Warframe's problem with it's weapons is that the vast majority play exactly the same, and rely wholly on numbers for differentiation. The Braton, Boltor, and Soma are all exactly the same weapons---except one has a larger clip, higher puncture damage, marginally faster firing rate or some other otherwise arbitrary numerical value.

However, what we need is more variety in actual function. Like how Phage has continuous fire with an on-the -fly manually adjustable spread, and how the Miter fires rebounding saw blades on a charge trigger. We need more guns that actually control and feel different.

Every gun should be equally as viable, but distinguish itself  through it's individual mechanics.

"but that defeats the purpose of progression, and diminishes the sense of achievement!"

No, no it doesn't. You just need to put all the truly badass ones in the void and behind an MR prerequisite. Just because you can buy a blueprint from the market for a gun that fires a flammable oil slick that slips enemies, it doesn't make it any less exciting when you finally get the last piece you need for that shotgun that fires clusters of pellets which rebound off walls and floors at high speeds shredding through groups of enemies multiple times per pellet.

This would not only alleviate the issue of worthless redundant guns, it would also add an additional level of depth and skill, reward finding unique ways to use your favorite weapons, i.e., turning a long hallway or chokepoint into a fiery slip 'n' slide of doom that CC's smaller, faster enemies by ragdolling them and damaging them as they slide, while heavier slower enemies are forced to walk through the flames.

Either way, we already have a good dozen variations on the basic assault rifle so to that person who said that making all weapons equally effective would turn the game into Call of Duty.... News Flash---It's already happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Either way, we already have a good dozen variations on the basic assault rifle so to that person who said that making all weapons equally effective would turn the game into Call of Duty.... News Flash---It's already happened.

 

I do agree that some of them are pretty redundant (boltor and tetra feel pretty similar, just that ones slower and possibly stronger). but on the other hand some of them have pretty interesting differences. Karaks near perfect accuracy and high rate of fire, countered by low magazine size.,Grakata's high critical and status chance, Gorgon being a gatling gun...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You had your argument refuted, and yes you are in the minority for wanting sidegrades and no progression in the game at all.

Except his points were refuted, that is why he left. I addressed everything Sonata had to say (and you) and showed what the flaws were.

 

37.8569% of all statistics are made up. Go take a survey of every person who plays Warframe, and ask them whether they prefer upgrades, sidegrades, or simply don't care. THEN you can tell people that they are in a minority and have them believe you.

People don't stop arguing with you because you "refute" their arguments - in every instance you refuse to acknowledge the existence of their argument entirely - they stop arguing with you because arguing with you is like arguing with a goat.

 

You can make the most patient, well-explained, reasonable, moderated, and amiable argument you want, and the only response you'll ever get will be "Baa." The goat does not care what you or anyone else has to say; it is a goat. It need only concern itself with chewing cud, finding shade, and occasionally headbutting well-meaning passerby. Eventually, you realize how silly you are for not initially realizing you were talking with a goat. Your cheeks tinged with a slight blush, you continue on your way hoping that nobody has paid witness to your short-lived delusion. You know that it would be cruel to continue harassing the goat to try to save face. 

I was perfectly content to give you the last word. I was perfectly content to leave you to your egotistic self-worship. I was perfectly content to limit myself to conversing with people who actually take the time to respond, rather than bleat. Until you went and tried to use someone else who had the misfortune of trying to talk to you as a crude means of reinforcing your miserable little excuse for an ethos. Go ahead and tell yourself that you really did win those arguments. Don't think for a minute, though, that you are somehow establishing a track record of caricatured credentials. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion?

 

Forcing the crit mechanic to be subjugated only to weak weaponry?

 

No thanks

 

I like my crits, especially on higher ranking weapons

While I don't use the Soma (because IMO it doesn't look as cool as the Grakata), I LOVE how it crits, and I'm super happy that the Grak got the buff that it did, which drives it even more to be my most favorite weapon in this entire game.

 

I dunno, a gun with weak base damage but with a good chance at high damage is more appealing to me than a weapon with just plain normally consistent high damage (Maybe I'm just into the gamble)

 

If you make all weak/low-tier weapons critical and all strong/high-tier weapons non critical but have a strong base damage, you remove the uniqueness and appeal of what crit brings to the table.

 

Why does it remove uniqueness? Because crits are no longer crit, for the sake of being crit. They are no longer that option to choose because you enjoy the concept of chance. They become instead a cushion for weak weapons to fall on in high-tier runs. Don't get the logic wrong, the crit is still crit. But in the end, we'll know it is because the weapon was S#&$ to being with. Not because it IS a crit weapon.

 

You might as well make all weapons equal if we go down this route. And equal doesn't = balance.

If the universe were equal, if the universe were one and one, there'd be just as much war as there would be peace, and nothing would progress. It would be stale, boring and the same, a flat line on the vital signs monitor.

 

But if one side were to gain an advantage, if a person's vital's bump the line on the monitor, whether it bein favor of up or down, things would constantly have to change in order to keep the balance.

 

The change, the bumps in the road, the living human being.

 

Eh, I hope I've made my point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My opinion?

 

Forcing the crit mechanic to be subjugated only to weak weaponry?

 

No thanks

 

I like my crits, especially on higher ranking weapons

While I don't use the Soma (because IMO it doesn't look as cool as the Grakata), I LOVE how it crits, and I'm super happy that the Grak got the buff that it did, which drives it even more to be my most favorite weapon in this entire game.

 

I dunno, a gun with weak base damage but with a good chance at high damage is more appealing to me than a weapon with just plain normally consistent high damage (Maybe I'm just into the gamble)

 

If you make all weak/low-tier weapons critical and all strong/high-tier weapons non critical but have a strong base damage, you remove the uniqueness and appeal of what crit brings to the table.

 

Why does it remove uniqueness? Because crits are no longer crit, for the sake of being crit. They are no longer that option to choose because you enjoy the concept of chance. They become instead a cushion for weak weapons to fall on in high-tier runs. Don't get the logic wrong, the crit is still crit. But in the end, we'll know it is because the weapon was S#&$ to being with. Not because it IS a crit weapon.

 

You might as well make all weapons equal if we go down this route. And equal doesn't = balance.

If the universe were equal, if the universe were one and one, there'd be just as much war as there would be peace, and nothing would progress. It would be stale, boring and the same, a flat line on the vital signs monitor.

 

But if one side were to gain an advantage, if a person's vital's bump the line on the monitor, whether it bein favor of up or down, things would constantly have to change in order to keep the balance.

 

The change, the bumps in the road, the living human being.

 

Eh, I hope I've made my point.

I agree with you almost completely. Critical-based weapons should not be exiled into a "low-tier" status simply because they are less mathematically stable than their conventional counterparts. It is important to preserve a wide variety of options that people can play around with. 

My slight (potential) disagreement with you is that you seem to think that sidegrades cannot equate to balance, or that sidegrades necessitate every weapon being completely identical in terms of stats. I doubt that anyone asking for sidegrade weapons wants anything like that. 

You are completely correct that equivalent weapons do not have any "intrinsic" balance. Balance needs to be achieved separately, just like it does when weapons are separated into tiers. However, having sidegrade weapons does not preclude the possibility of balance, nor does it make establishing a sense of progression impossible. "Sidegrades" just mean that no one weapon should drastically out-perform other weapons. It might have substantial advantages, but it should also have substantial drawbacks. Things that allow players to choose one or the other based on personal preference. 

If my contention is addressing something that you were not trying to imply, then you can safely say you have my complete agreement. Don't bully crit weapons just because you don't care for them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The majority of this game, likes upgrades not sidegrades. Thats one of the reasons why the system we have a) exists b) works. You are in the minority, something you will have to just live with.

 

They, like you leave because their argument is refuted, no more points. I take their argument apart and they leave.

 

They make their arguments like you did, I take it piece by piece and show the flaws. If I am a goat, then you would be a sheep.

 

I'm cordial to the majority, when I play WF I try to be as helpful and nice as I can be. In topics such as these however, when people want to change WF away from what it is into something thats ridiculous, no longer fun and pointless with no progression, not something I stand for. Thats one of the reasons why I take peoples arguments apart piece by piece.

 

1. Like I said, let's see some solid evidence of that. Otherwise, there's something to be said for the fact that you feel compelled to argue against people calling for changes to the preconceived notion of a "system" you are so in love with. If being part of a minority means I get no say regarding where I'd like to see the game progress, and I am unquestionably part of a minority, shouldn't you feel secure enough to keep your peace and trust in the tyranny of the "majority" to keep things the way you want them? 

 

My apologies for not immediately submitting to your indomitable "shut up; you have no friends" argument. 

 

2. So what you're saying is that because there are people here who disagree with you, that absolves you of showing them any courtesy from the get-go? The forums are a crusade-style purge-the-heretic battlefield? Wow, I never knew. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Grakata is about as starter as it is.

And it can hit 17k burst DPS with 9.4k sustained when built with Corrosive Cold.

 

That is pretty dang powerful in my book as this supersedes a ton of other rifles barring the Soma and Prime series of rifles. And the Soma won't be able to inflict status as well as the Grakata.

Edited by fatpig84
Link to comment
Share on other sites

See entire topic, majority of posts. See other similar topics, majority of posts. You are in the minority. There is no tyranny in wanting to keep the game as it is. There have been people calling for nerfs before who DE have listened to, therefore I and others will argue against it. Your argument is a logical fallacy and you should be ashamed for saying it.

 

Two entirely different things, one was said the other was not. Saying you are in the minority does not = "shut up you have no friends". Nice try at trying to trash my point like that.

 

I show them courtesy, I just put it in a lot more blunt language. Believe me, if I didn't like you I'd be merciless.

 

They don't, they equate to stale game play. And that description fits sidegrades exactly, and it is what people are asking for. People can already choose the weapons they wish, hier tiered weaponry SHOULD out perform low tier, progression.

1. This forum, much less this particular thread, does not represent the majority of people who play Warframe. It represents a very small portion of people who play the game in the North American region alone, and that's setting aside the rest of our international players across the seas. I disagree with you, so I am allowed to voice my dissent, even if you are insistent on dogmatically labeling me a "minority." That's not logical fallacy, that's a fact. I'm not accusing you of tyranny, either. "Tyranny of the majority" is a figure of speech referring to the risk most inherent to any system of majority rule, which you are advocating. If you really think that numbers of supporters for an idea is the end-all-be-all measure of validity, and you truly believe that your opinions have greater numbers of supporters, you shouldn't be too worried about the game changing for the worse. At the end of the day the only fact here is that you still don't have any hard numbers on total number of players who favor your vision of a tiering system for weapons. Until you do have hard numbers that account for every player in the community, forum-going or not, your claim that "the majority of this game likes upgrades" is baseless.

2. You're right. You never did literally say "shut up; you have no friends." You did, however, imply that train of thought by labeling people a minority as though that were somehow relevant to the ongoing discussion. Maybe you didn't mean to imply that.

 

But then...

 

What was the point of telling us that we are a minority, if not to invalidate our opinions and bolster your own? Your attitude is obviously "majority = right, minority = wrong." That's essentially the same thing as "shut up; you have no friends." All I'm saying here is that it's rather pathetic for you to need to fall back on "more people agree with me than with you," especially when you can't actually prove that to be true.

 

3. Don't make me angry. You wouldn't like me when I'm angry. Seriously now? I'm honestly trembling in fear at the prospects of you unleashing your full fury on us, the uneducated masses, milord. I can't begin to imagine the full-bodied, intimidating terror of your peerless reasoning skills. How could I not see that you were merely holding back your true power behind your high-and-mighty act? You can stop stuffing your pants now; we'll pretend not to see the toilet paper hanging over your belt. In all seriousness, if you think that you've been courteous to the people who disagree with you, you're in for a rude awakening sometime in the future. Good luck to you in that regard.

4. Yes, because you've already established your incredible skill at telling people what they are saying, especially when "what they are saying" has absolutely nothing to do with what they are actually saying. Also because we haven't all heard this from you fifty times already. We have an opinion. You have an opposite opinion. Believe it or not, that's not "refuting an argument" or "showing a flaw" in our opinions. That's stating your own opinion. You think that sidegrade weapons make for stale gameplay. I think sidegrade weapons make for greater freedom of choice and a greater degree of user customization. That doesn't make either one of us more right or wrong than the other. You don't seem to believe that, which is precisely why people grow exasperated and stop talking to you. You confuse "opinions" with "arguments," and think that reasserting your own opinion enough times somehow invalidates the opposition.

 

Remember back in that other thread when I spelled out one of my suggestions for you, and you found out you actually agreed with it? After dismissing it as something you had "taken apart?"

At least one other person in this thread has expressed an idea nearly identical to that suggestion, which you dismissed as completely wrong again, because you didn't actually take the time to fully comprehend what it was they were saying.

People have some pretty interesting and reasonable things to say when you do more than check for whether or not they're agreeing with you. If you want to change the way people here think, if you want to convince them to support your vision of Warframe, if you want them to stop advocating changes that you think will harm the game, you seriously need to clean up your act. You need to mask the superiority complex, take the time to read their ideas without dismissing them as worthless the moment they don't match up with your expectations, and do more than repeat your opinions as irrefutable facts. You need to argue and debate, not lecture. Lecturing doesn't work when you don't have any actual authority, and lecturing is precisely what you have been trying to do in every thread I've seen you respond to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you almost completely. Critical-based weapons should not be exiled into a "low-tier" status simply because they are less mathematically stable than their conventional counterparts. It is important to preserve a wide variety of options that people can play around with. 

My slight (potential) disagreement with you is that you seem to think that sidegrades cannot equate to balance, or that sidegrades necessitate every weapon being completely identical in terms of stats. I doubt that anyone asking for sidegrade weapons wants anything like that. 

You are completely correct that equivalent weapons do not have any "intrinsic" balance. Balance needs to be achieved separately, just like it does when weapons are separated into tiers. However, having sidegrade weapons does not preclude the possibility of balance, nor does it make establishing a sense of progression impossible. "Sidegrades" just mean that no one weapon should drastically out-perform other weapons. It might have substantial advantages, but it should also have substantial drawbacks. Things that allow players to choose one or the other based on personal preference. 

If my contention is addressing something that you were not trying to imply, then you can safely say you have my complete agreement. Don't bully crit weapons just because you don't care for them. 

I'm with you there with the side grades 100%

Just because equality =/= balance, doesn't mean that equality doesn't also have a place in reality.

 

It also exists in this world, and as the contrast to chaos.

Having sidegrades/equal weapons to add to the intrinsic diversity of "one" adds to the experience of playing/living.

 

Like remixing a song. You keep the song's underlying essence, but change or remix the feeling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also removes any point of progression because all weapons are the same. Congratulations, you just killed the game.

 

you seem to think that sidegrades.... necessitate every weapon being completely identical in terms of stats. I doubt that anyone asking for sidegrade weapons wants anything like that.

 

You guys are arguing about two totally different things. I'm pretty sure Ursus knows this, but it seems Nightman missed it.

 

If "sidegrades" would kill Warframe, it would be dead already.

 

Phage, Soma, Penta, Ogris, Stug, Boltor P, Detron etc are sidegrades - AKA weapons that are arguably equally effective, but each favoring a different situation/playstyle.

 

Sidegrade does not mean making every weapon have identical DPS, range, stats etc. Progression can(and does) exist in other forms besides weapon base DPS. I'm not a proponent of a single weapon tier, but the argument that it would kill the game, or couldn't be enjoyable is simply incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I got it quite quickly. Sidegrades, turning weapons into identical things but different skins. This would kill off WF. The guns you have mentioned Phil are most certainly not sidegrades, and they don't favour any sort of particular playstyle at all other than "blow things up quickly" or "charge forward and annihilate".

 

Sidegrades don't work. Progression is required for a game to work

Nope. You are using a different definition of sidegrades, which is why you two are arguing in circles.

Forget the loaded term "sidegrade". In this case, we are talking about weapons that are arguably as effective as eachother.

No one is talking about reskins here. When you get that, the conversation can continue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sidegrades, turning weapons into identical things but different skins. This would kill off WF.

I think we have a different understanding of what a sidegrade is...

 

Or maybe I am wrong and must use another term that isn't sidegrade (which then would lead me to understand that i would have been talking about "different weapon than X in the same tier" and not sidegrades)

 

I thought an "AoE, high damage, low RoF weapon" could be a sidegrade of a "high RoF, single target oriented, weapon"

Where the Rocket Launcher, while it may do a ton of damage and in a large radius around where you target; when needing to more quickly take out spread out single targets, the Assault Rifle would more efficiently get the job done.

If my original understanding of sidegrade was wrong, then yes the proper term for sidegrade you describe would kill the game's playerbase.

It would severely damage any game, I believe.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we have a different understanding of what a sidegrade is...

Actually, your definition would be the more accurate definition of sidegrade. 

A horizontal change/shift in power as opposed to a vertical one.

An identical weapon with a different skin isn't any kind of ___grade, side, up, down, or wonkaways. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It also removes any point of progression because all weapons are the same. Congratulations, you just killed the game.

You can progress in different ways, namely, most progression in this game is mod based rather than weapon based.

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...