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

[Jin_Kazama]

i just want the jaw sword/pangolin sword to have purpose :(

[DiabolusUrsus]

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.

Thank you, thank you, thank you so much. I'm sorry for not being able to put this into words myself.

I agree that there needs to be a sense of progression to Warframe, but I don't think that sense of progression should be tied to the weapon system. That strikes me as an easy-out that sets aside the need to create more interesting and engaging gameplay provided DE continues to pump out weapon content.

 

I'm fine with creating tiers of weapons, but I dislike the idea of releasing 30 different copies of the same gun with higher or lower stats for each tier, especially with aesthetic styles for weapons being such a gamble. Because of that, I want some sort of system put into place for players to be able to carry their pet favorites across tiers. This would allow for maybe 3 different versions of the same gun to be staggered throughout the mastery rank tiers, and still cover the gaps in between. If that sort of system is unacceptable, I want to see sidegrades less distinct weapon tiers and a different form of player progression put into effect.

I am not in favor of corralling a specific archetype of weapons (crit weapons in this instance) into a set range of tiers. Crit weapon should not translate into beginning weapon. I think adding to the critical and status chance stats of beginner weapons would be an interesting and worthwhile experiment in bringing them up to par, but demanding that all higher-tier weapons be based off of their physical damage output is counter-productive to freedom of choice.

 

I agree that Warframe needs some form of player progression to maintain its livelihood. I disagree that said progression can or should only come from weapon tiering. I think that there are other more sustainable possibilities out there that will be of greater benefit to the game as a whole. For example, progressing from the basic enemies we are fighting now to facing off against enemies with more complex behavior and weaknesses. Or even a beginner-friendly focus system (crosses fingers). Increased investment opportunities for resources on the starchart. Stuff like that.

 

Nightman, I apologize for growing harshly irate with you.

[LukeAura]

i just want the jaw sword/pangolin sword to have purpose :(

Jaw sword is actually a fairly good sword right now. 

It's third best among them all I would say, Although I haven't seen the Cronus' and Pangolin stats yet, I've compared to all the others its at least a sidegrade to Dark Sword, slightly edged out by heat Sword, and then there is the dakra prime. 

[DiabolusUrsus]

Except whenever sidegrade is mentioned, that generally (and for 99% most part) is what is wanted. Weapons that are arguably as effective as each other already exist in this game.

 

 

 

 

Correct, which is why nerfing weapons would be a bad way to go.

Funny, considering the number of people here who keep saying "no, that's not what we mean," when you tell them that weapon re-skins will kill the game. When we say "no, that's not what we mean," we are being honest with you. You need to consider that you might possibly be misunderstanding us in order to reach an actual understanding.

 

Where did nerfing weapons come into this? I'm certainly not calling for any specific nerfs. The OP wasn't calling for nerfs either. He was calling for buffs to early-game weapons and a reshuffling of stats for late-game weapons. No nerfs to be found.

[Jin_Kazama]

Jaw sword is actually a fairly good sword right now. 

It's third best among them all I would say, Although I haven't seen the Cronus' and Pangolin stats yet, I've compared to all the others its at least a sidegrade to Dark Sword, slightly edged out by heat Sword, and then there is the dakra prime. 

 

The thing is to me its not just about the DPS ladder,

Before Melee 2.0 the Jaw Sword was a puncture sword. it was different, when i expected swords to get an overhaul i didnt expect them to just make it "just another slash sword"

[notionphil]

Except whenever sidegrade is mentioned, that generally (and for 99% most part) is what is wanted.

 

Weapons that are arguably as effective as each other already exist in this game.

 

 

Firstly, the word "sidegrade" isn't even in the OP.

 

Neither the OP, or Ursus are talking about reskins. It's possible that someone in the world is trying to defend the point that all weapons should be reskins....but no one that you're debating with currently is.

 

[all weapons should] perform about equally well as [other weapons]

 

That was in the OP. I didn't even add the emphasis, he did.

 

That is what this conversation is about. There may be someone else who means some other definition of a loaded word, but to prevent any further confusion, lets all stop using the word "sidegrades" right now and have a real convo.

 

Now, if you guys want to debate about progression etc, fine :)

 

PS - i personally am a fan of progression as long as there are ample options that "perform about equally well" at each tier. I also agree however that early game weapons should be able to be 'improved' through some arduous process to make them viable in later tiers, if we so choose.

 

However, there is no law that everything in the game must be tied into progression. abilities don't scale/progress. does that break the game? nope.

[notionphil]

 

If things are in tiers, why would we carry them across? That just seems like bad design. We have a favourite weapon, come to higher up areas and we can't use it, it might be our favourite but at the end of the day if it's not for that area then it's not for that area. The 3 different versions, something like the Nikana and Dragon Nikana?

 

Why is it bad design to allow players to stick with (and even improve) a weapon that they really enjoy? I personally love the feel of the Seer. However, it is outclassed at endgame. What are the options?

 

1) DE could make 3 different tiers of the Seer as you suggest. This would be fine, but now I will not forma/potato any of the starter Seers. This also means 3x as many weapons in the game (so, over 300).

 

or

 

2) they could create a system that would allow weaker/starter weapons to be upgraded over time to match endgame weapons. Maybe after 8 forma, a weapons base stats go up a tier (if it was a starter/mid tier weapon....not if its already a top tier).

 

Pretty sure either of those won't break the game. As we see, progression can co-exist with using a weapon from one tier to the next.

 

How does that hurt the game more than making my favorite weapon ineffective...or making the forma and time i spent in the Seer now irrelevant?

Edited April 23, 2014 by notionphil

[DiabolusUrsus]

Nerfing things never, ever ends well. And quite a few people have.

 

If things are in tiers, why would we carry them across? That just seems like bad design. We have a favourite weapon, come to higher up areas and we can't use it, it might be our favourite but at the end of the day if it's not for that area then it's not for that area. The 3 different versions, something like the Nikana and Dragon Nikana?

 

Agree to some of this.

 

Again, agree. I merely used the weapons in this instance as an example of progression. Example, boss behaviour - Have a boss that requires you to interact with the environment around you, he can spawn lots of mobs to surround you, when he takes damage he releases red orbs that if they touch you, drain your life to heal him - you have to dodge behind things to avoid. If he takes heavy damage he can kill his own mobs to heal (but can be interrupted), he can deal Aoe attacks based on what hits him and how, you have to use gun emplacements around you to hurt him at certain intervals etc. More engaging gameplay. Guns are only the start.

 

No problem, I too apologise if I come across a bit too bluntly.

 

I may need to re-read thread, but that seems to be the generic use of sidegrade and use here, especially by Niko.

 

Define early game, because starter should stay quite weak. Late-game are meant to be powerful.

1. Brakk nerf. It was needed. It wasn't excessive. It ended well. Hek nerf way back around the time of Update 7. It was needed. It could have been implemented better, but it ended reasonably well. (This does not go to say that the Hek does not need another look.) Nerfs are not universally bad, and are an integral part of achieving balance. They are a tool, not a threat.

 

2. Because many of the weapons that exist across the tiers are distinct and unique, and some people prefer lower-tier weapons to "higher-tier" ones when it comes to aesthetics. Being able to transcend tiers does not stop you from participating in your preferred method of progression, but it does prevent your personal preferences from stampeding over people who don't like it. Overall, I'd say that's better for the long-term health of the game. The Nikana and Dragon Nikana are not approaching "too many copies," but there's no reason why I shouldn't be able to make my Nikana roughly equivalent to the Dragon Nikana through the investment of time, effort, and resources. That's actually a form of progression. You can still just upgrade from the Nikana to the Dragon if you want, and you won't have to work as hard as I will to get there.

 

3. notionphil should have already shown you that NikolaiLev was in no way calling for re-skins.

4. Braton MK-1. Braton. Strun. Burston. Boar (if you still have one...) Machete. Skana. Lato. Aklato. Sicarus. Cronus. All of the weapons that are most immediately available to new players, and quickly fall off in comparison to newer content. If you'll notice, most of the "beginning" weapons are also the "older weapons," which is a prime example of the power creep that many people are fighting against.

[XRAY0128]

That is the defimition of power creep. Newer weapons being better than previous weapons.

The pull of getting new weapons is diversifying your arsenal.

"I have a gun thats good against shields, but now I could get a new gun thats good for armor or one that shoots death rays."

[DiabolusUrsus]

Because if a weapon isn't meant for the end-game then it just isn't. You can mod your weapon, milk it for as much DPS as possible and take it to end-game and see how far it goes, that is its limits. Or you could mod it tactically, go for Status / Crit (Radiation Status is good for turning enemies against each other)

 

Whats the point of an end-game weapon then if you will just upgrade a weaker to a higher tier? Theres no pull.

 

On certain things yes, it can work. On the whole however, nerfs don't tend to end well.

 

By making your Nikana as good as the Dragon, irregardless of the time and effort spent, the fact it could reach that level would be pointless. Why upgade to the Dragon if the end result is the same? The upgrade should be stronger and unreachable unless you upgrade. Weapons should stay in their tiers.

 

No, but he (niko) has consistently called for the sidegrade that I mentioned.

 

Except newer weapons will always be stronger in most respects, thats generally how games tend to work. It's not power creep.

 

1. *facepalm* So you literally don't care that your preferences will make other people unhappy, and are unwilling to compromise. That particular attitude is as damaging to the game as removing all forms of progression, because this is a Free-to-Play micro-transaction model. It is reliant on continued player support, rather than one-time box-price purchases. In other words... keeping its players happy. As many of them as possible.

 

2. No pull for you, maybe. I'd feel the pull of wanting to try out new things. We're not saying higher tiers shouldn't exist, either. Some weapons will start out more powerful than others. If you want to respect tier boundaries as inviolable, there's nothing stopping you from doing that. Nobody is trying to force you to upgrade weapons out of their starting tier. It's entirely optional, and largely supplementary.

3. How so? The Dragon Nikana would carry the benefit of requiring less time to acquire, fewer resources, and serve as a status symbol. The Dragon Nikana also has aesthetic differences that some players may prefer, and would be inaccessible without upgrading. Don't make the mistake of assuming that just because people aren't forced to try out new things, that they won't. Novelty is a huge part of popular appeal. Boosting the stats of the original Nikana is also a form of upgrading. It just doesn't necessitate discarding catalysts and forma. That is still progression, and would still be a compelling part of gameplay.

 

4. The "sidegrade" you mentioned is weapons having identical stats and different appearances, e.g. re-skins. The sidegrade NikolaiLev was advocating was weapons with very different stats and similar capabilities. He's not trying to shape the weapon pool into conformity. That is not the sidegrade you mentioned.

5. That, as XRAY0128 explained, is precisely what power creep is, and power creep garners a lot of resentment from longstanding players. Back during Update 7, the Hek and Gorgon were considered top-tier weapons. Where are they now? If you want weapon tiers to be sacred, then the tiers need to stay consistent. There was a time during closed-beta when the Pangolin Sword was top-tier. Look at where it is now. That's not encouraging player progression. That's devaluing their efforts over time, and that makes many people very unhappy.

Edit: Also, you say that nerfs don't tend to end well. Mind elaborating on which nerfs in Warframe you've noticed not ending well? I can't remember very many nerfs that actually went through that weren't appropriate. DE doesn't usually nerf things. They don't usually buff them, either. Balance changes as a whole are virtually nonexistent in Warframe. It's always "wait for Overhaul 2.0."

Edited April 23, 2014 by DiabolusUrsus

[Naqel]

While the idea has some merit, it assumes that starter weapons should be weaker(they shouldn't), and that the current way critical hits work should stay that way(it probably will, but it shouldn't).

 

Personally I feel that weapon progression should follow an ease of use pattern, with weapons that are more exotic or demanding being the ones gated by higher Rank and production costs.

But that'd assume we'd have things like functional "encounter/combat economy", balanced warframe powers, a melee system that actual gameplay instead of just looking pretty, and the game scaled like an actual shooter, rather than a gear-grinder mmo.

Edited April 23, 2014 by Naqel

[DiabolusUrsus]

*snip*

 

Frost, as a start. Wrecked an entire frame based on a few people.

 

So we're back to a fundamental separation of opinions. We can continue discussing the merits of distinct upgrades as opposed to flexible upgrades when you can wrap your head around the idea that people with differing views and motivations exist, and that their positions are equally valid.

 

Okay. As a start. Go on.

Because the Hek nerf, Brakk nerf, Akmagnus nerf, Acrid nerf, Nova nerf, and Rhino nerf all worked out fairly well, and the recent controversial Galatine nerf brought the weapon closer in line with its Mastery Rank prerequisite. According to your train of thought, that should be appropriate.

 

That's a sizable track-record of nerfs that did not end poorly in contrast to one counter-example. You're right that nerfs rile people up to start, but when they settle down the effects are overall acceptably beneficial. Excessively allergic reactions to nerfs are as a whole more detrimental to the game than the nerfs themselves are.

[RealPandemonium]

Just ignore Nightman and post feedback, if you have it.  Don't feed the trolls, people. 

[XRAY0128]

One guarenteed fact of gaming, the more you play the more items that will come out. Out of those that come out, eventually there will be something that is better than your current choice.

 

Yes dude, Warframe has Power Creep. Almost every new weapon that pops up suddenly renders older ones obsolete, this is power creep. It doesn't matter if it "inevitably happens" its still power creep.

[Guest]

my responses will be bolded

Because if a weapon isn't meant for the end-game then it just isn't. You can mod your weapon, milk it for as much DPS as possible and take it to end-game and see how far it goes, that is its limits. Or you could mod it tactically, go for Status / Crit (Radiation Status is good for turning enemies against each other)

 

If the only gun able to do end-game was a rocket launcher and every other gun dwarfs in strength in comparison to it, would you still play this game? Might as well call it Rocketframe because the goal would be to get a rocket launcher in order to beat the game (everything having been done before hand would become irrelevant).

 

Yes we can mod the weapon, yes its an efficient way to milk the most out of it. But if it doesn't work in the endgame, then we will either force ourselves to the meta, or lock ourselves out of content because of stubbornness to submit to it.

The point of a "game" is to experience. If that means to use ONLY a certain set of guns/rules that not everyone will appeal to; then in my case, since it doesn't appeal to me or the audience I am part of, then we simply won't play it.

openQ: Why do you think we shouldn't have the option to strengthen non-end-game weapons to be on par with end-game weapons?
 

 

 

Whats the point of an end-game weapon then if you will just upgrade a weaker to a higher tier? Theres no pull.

 

An end-game rocket launcher is not the same as a starter assault rifle. If you like big explosions and aren't very fond of rapid firing, then guess which one will be more valuable to that individual? *hint: its the one that shoots rockets*

 

The point of that specific end-game weapon being that it shoots rockets and appeals to the michael bay junkie.

 

The point of end-game weapons should be because they aren't like normal tier weapons. They should being their own style of play into the field that cannot be simply accesed until you unlock it through experiencing the game. If this "making low-tier weapons stronger" were to actually happen, then we shouldn't have two guns that perform similarly in any 2 tiers.

If it was intended from DE to not have us be able to use grakata in end-game, tell me now so I know that my arguing is futile and I can stop trying (I'll probably experience the end-game through youtube or something)

One close example of the point of an end-game weapon would be the soma and grak, both used to be strictly crit weapons which in my opinion was good for the upgrade to a better crit rifle (soma the obvious upgrade), and because at the time I didn't think twiceabout making everything viable (with the philosophy that weapons could still retain their uniqueness). The good thing that we have now is that soma is slash and PURE critical, while grak is impact and hybrid crit/status.

 

In the end, you have more options, everyone has options, and no one is forced to play with a "rocket launcher" just because its the best gun and the only gun that can take on end-game content.

 

openQ: Why do you think there wouldn't be a pull or incentive to use end-game weapons?

 

On certain things yes, it can work. On the whole however, nerfs don't tend to end well.

 

How often nerfs end badly is debatable. Why don't they tend to end well? For the hek, fallacy of sunk costs. For the gorgon, you could snipe with that thing. For the Grakata (pre-buff today), it was already weak weapon to begin with.

 

My point here is that nerfs end negatively the same as they are well recieved. It just depends on the specifics of the nerf in relation to other items of the same category, and the investment of players into the nerfed item.

 

openQ: Can you tell me the attribute of nerfing that causes the thing it nerfs not to end well?


 

By making your Nikana as good as the Dragon, irregardless of the time and effort spent, the fact it could reach that level would be pointless. Why upgade to the Dragon if the end result is the same? The upgrade should be stronger and unreachable unless you upgrade. Weapons should stay in their tiers.

 

Why upgrade to the dragon? because it has a higher crit and status chance? And if you aren't for stats, then for the way it looks. Having a stronger nika doesn't mean it has to have the stats of the higher-tiered d.nika.

The nika could grow in it's own strengths, like a more viable raw base damage. Different in stats than the d.nika with higher crit, speed and status chance, but just as viable in whatever tier you spent time trying to optimize it for.

 

openQ: Why should weapons stay in their tiers? Why should weaker weapons not have a chance to become viable? Why do you think that lower tier weapons, when upgraded, would become the same (in stats) as a higher-tier weapon?

 

 

 

No, but he (niko) has consistently called for the sidegrade that I mentioned.

 

eh, pass

 

 

 

Except newer weapons will always be stronger in most respects, thats generally how games tend to work. It's not power creep.

It is in-fact the definition of power creep, just because it is a norm, that doesn't mean it isn't what it is.

Is running not running because that generally how running works? To run?

Is power-creep not power-creep because that generally how games work? With power-creep?
 

Just because something has been going on for a long time and has become norm, doesn't mean it should stay indefinitely.

Look at black rights in america, slavery, even child sacrifice if you want to go even further back. Those were the games our ancestors have played in the past and I'm glad we are without them today.

If games were to stay they way they worked in the 80s, we wouldn't have 3D graphics today.

openQ: Why do you think that everything that comes after should be better? Whats wrong with taking an old sword and reforging it with stronger material?
 

Edited April 23, 2014 by Guest

[XRAY0128]

To add actually new content? Rather than just adding more powerful versions of old stuff?

 

I am starting to suspect you really are a troll

[Guest]

Except this is not the current situation, we have plenty of weapons.

 

Understand what this means for in the future.

 

Speak for yourself? I can mod weapons (melee and gun) that are of a decent tier to be fine at end-game

 

If we keep going along with power-creep, in the future you will no longer be able to do that with the same weapon (assuming we stay with what you suggest and keep making new more powerful weapons for new and more powerful content without consideration of the viability of low-tier weapons that we have now)

 

We aren't limited to certain guns.

 

We will be if above.

 

Removes progression, 0 reason to change onto a different weapon. Beginner or non-end game should only be used within their respective areas, you don't see anybody taking a starter sword in FF7 and complaining "I like the looks/swing/x of this, why can't I use it at the end". It's just accepted fact, new area, new enemies, you tend to upgrade your stuff, not try to band-aid your old stuff.

 

There is still progression, there are still guns you can only have access to at higher ranks. The reason you'd want to switch to the new weapons? Because they aren't the same gun as the one you use now.

 

When you get tired of the machine gun, you grab a rocket launcher, then when you get tired of that, you move onto the next thing, and then the next thing, and so on. Sometimes you feel nostalgic, and wouldn't it be great if you could still use the 'ol machine gun again?

 

Just becasue there is no currently present reason to switch in the future, it doesn't mean that reasons to switch won't happen.

 

In Final Fantasy 7 there was no gear improvement system, you were forced to change equipment in order to keep the difficulty at a certain level (I've done a Buster Sword run before. It isn't impossible, just takes a lot more grinding). Unlike what's curently in Warframe, you can't "bandaid" your stuff in FF7, it was the nature of the game of FF7 to keep progressing and never look back. This game is still open to those options. Hence the modding system, hence the feedback forums.

 

Finally get the MR tied into weaponry, Dragon is better. If you're just upgrading to match the Dragon, then why would you bother with it? May as well take away the upgraded weapon, no need for it.

 

D.nika is better, doesn't mean the nika can't be. Why not bother if we had the option?

 

They stay in their tiers because thats how games work, they can become real viable in their own areas, and perhaps on occasion outside of it. The tiers exist for a reason.

 

They become viable in their area, and also everywhere that predates it. Not all games function with tiers, take a game like Dark Souls into consideration. That game is all about "bandaiding" equipment and making it better. A whole variety of weapons, none better than the rest.

 

Everything gets stronger in the end. Do we refer to every game where stuff gets stronger as power-creep? No

Yes, yes we do. Doesn't mean it's bad. Power-creep can be a good measuring stick for... well, power (especially in RPGs). Whether it's bad or good for Warframe game is the argument.

 

Old stuff gets put aside at some point.

 

But melee weapons are old, and obsolete, why don't we just all have guns? Hey guns are kinda obsolete too, why don't we have warframe abilities that kill everything on #4? Take the resources from guns and melee and pool them all into warframe energy? Seems more efficient, but that's not the name of the game. Plus I don't think it'd be half as fun as what Warframe is now (although the name would be more precise)

 

Look at black rights in america, slavery, even child sacrifice if you want to go even further back. Those were the games our ancestors have played in the past and I'm glad we are without them today.

If games were to stay they way they worked in the 80s, we wouldn't have 3D graphics today.

 

Two entirely different things that are not applicable here.

 

They are, the idea that you should be restricted and unallowed to fare well with low-tier gear in the future when the possibilities of improvement are present.

 

If we leave/left things unchanged, if we don't/didn't challenge what we have/had, then okay. Low tier weapons would never be used again down the road (non-whites wouldn't be equal in america, slavery would not be abolished, children would still be sacrificed).

Improve the concept of equality past only white people, and now non-whites have the same freedoms of whites in America.

Improve the concept of equality past rich people, and now the slaves they once owned are owners of themselves just as the rich people are to theirselves.

Improve the concept of the use of children, and you don't sacrifice them just because they currently have no useful skills; you help them grow, and teach them to be people who benefit the world we live in.

 

To have the ability to improve old, low-tier weapons. That means we can still use them efficiently despite all of the fresh new amazing content that stands before us to use. And so many more options to use than being restricted to using new content to play with new content.

 

Whats the point in making new content if the old stuff is fine?

You say that as if we can't create anything new while still having old things at the same time.

 

To add actually new content? Rather than just adding more powerful versions of old stuff?

 

I am starting to suspect you really are a troll

I don't think The-Nightman to be a troll

 

I do think he is really devoted to his ideals though

Edited April 23, 2014 by Guest

[DiabolusUrsus]

Except not everything is equal and valid.

 

 

To add actually new content? Rather than just adding more powerful versions of old stuff?

 

I am starting to suspect you really are a troll

 

He's not a troll. As you can see from how he responded to me, he sincerely believes that his opinions are intrinsically superior to and more valid than ours. That definitely is a trollish comment to make, but from the attitude he's adopted in most of his posts and his inability to conceive new reasoning to support his ideas, he literally cannot understand that the "evidence" he has presented us with is far from satisfactory and doesn't encompass any more than his personal notion of what constitutes a well-designed and entertaining game.

He thinks his opinions are arguments, and our arguments are opinions.

He doesn't understand that the status quo or dominant paradigms within the game are all subject to change.

He doesn't understand the purpose of feedback forums.

He doesn't understand that simply disagreeing with us for the same three or four reasons over and over again without actually addressing anything we say is not the same as disassembling our arguments and exposing their flaws; that it's only listing what he disagrees with.

He doesn't understand why we don't see any reason in his dogma, and assumes that the only reason why we aren't in complete agreement with him is that we have yet to see the righteousness of his convictions.

The concepts of showing consideration for other people and exercising tolerance of their preferences are incompatible to him. If we are able to carry our favorite weapons across tiers, that ruins his fun because we aren't being forced to do things exactly the same way he thinks they should be done. He doesn't understand that even if we choose to carry starter gear into the endgame, that doesn't mean that he has to do the same thing. He doesn't understand that being able to do that doesn't ruin the fun of the game for us, and that it in fact makes it more fun. He doesn't understand that when given the choice people will choose to play in a way that they think is fun, and won't force themselves to play in a way they don't want to if they don't have to. He doesn't understand that what we are suggesting doesn't mean that tiers won't exist, or that endgame weapons won't exist. He doesn't understand that the systems are not mutually exclusive, that it doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

The unfortunate thing is that he thinks he understands, and until he considers the possibility of actually not understanding, we're not going to be able to get through to him.

 

You can see this from how he responded to notionphil's attempt at clearing up our misunderstanding... and then refused to acknowledge that he was wrong.

"No, we're not saying that."

"No, I'm 100% certain that you're saying that."

"But we're really not saying that, we're saying this."

"No, you're saying that."

 

Okay. It's frustrating, but things have to be equally frustrating from his perspective. Why can't we just agree with him, darn it?!

 

He's not trolling. He's just so avidly enraptured with his own ideals - including the notion that his ideals are everyone else's ideals - that he can't bring himself to take us seriously. He's just not there yet. He has toned down his superiority complex quite a bit, though, and that's a start. It's really difficult to teach empathy.

Edited April 24, 2014 by DiabolusUrsus

[DiabolusUrsus]

Are you normally this dense or do you try hard? DE do work on new content - see Melee 2.0.

PS: He wasn't saying that DE doesn't add new content. He was saying that there's still merit to adding new content because it's new content, and that it doesn't have to surpass the old stuff to be considered worthwhile.

[DiabolusUrsus]

No, I just take what I see from peoples posts and apply it to the game. Orange doesn't become blue regardless

He thinks his opinions are arguments, and our arguments are opinions.

He doesn't understand that the status quo or dominant paradigms within the game are all subject to change.

He doesn't understand the purpose of feedback forums.

I do have arguments, which is why I've taken apart other peoples. Quite a few people have however, posted opinion as an argument.

Dominant paradigms within games do change - see Acrid and Damage 2.0

Feedback - to give player feedback to the Devs on what changes they think should be made, what they'd like to be made, their vision of the game and what direction they'd like the game to go in. Sadly, a lot of opinions and not arguments are given.

He doesn't understand that simply disagreeing with us for the same three or four reasons over and over again without actually addressing anything we say is not the same as disassembling our arguments and exposing their flaws; that it's only listing what he disagrees with.

He doesn't understand why we don't see any reason in his dogma, and assumes that the only reason why we aren't in complete agreement with him is that we have yet to see the righteousness of his convictions.

Given examples, as I have through this and other topics. I simply say "look at the evidence".

The concepts of showing consideration for other people and exercising tolerance of their preferences are incompatible to him. If we are able to carry our favorite weapons across tiers, that ruins his fun because we aren't being forced to do things exactly the same way he thinks they should be done. He doesn't understand that even if we choose to carry starter gear into the endgame, that doesn't mean that he has to do the same thing. He doesn't understand that being able to do that doesn't ruin the fun of the game for us, and that it in fact makes it more fun. He doesn't understand that when given the choice people will choose to play in a way that they think is fun, and won't force themselves to play in a way they don't want to if they don't have to. He doesn't understand that what we are suggesting doesn't mean that tiers won't exist, or that endgame weapons won't exist. He doesn't understand that the systems are not mutually exclusive, that it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Not my preferences, how the game works. If you take low-tier weaponry into high-tier area it would not bother me in the slightest. Just don't then come running to the forums saying "x should be stronger, it's not fair". That essentially is the crux of the majority of arguments. I won't take beginner weapons to end-game because they don't belong there. The key is in the word starter/beginner-weapons.

1. No, orange doesn't become blue, but what is orange or blue to you might not be for someone else who doesn't see shades of red or green. You take what we say and you apply it to the game through the context of your own opinions of positive or negative changes, and you look at what you see as necessarily correct. That doesn't change the fact that our opinions are just as valid as yours, though.

2. No, quite a few people have posted opinion as opinion. You make the mistake of construing opinions as arguments and try to respond to them as such. You then go on to post your opinion as a counter argument, which makes zero sense and only leads you in circles.

You don't believe that certain paradigms should be subject to change: see your empty argument about "the way Warframe works" as though the game is somehow set in stone. The way things are isn't necessarily the way they have to be.

Feedback: can be composed of opinions. People don't have to make arguments to get feedback. You are completely in the wrong for trying to tell them that they can't give feedback in the form of opinions.

3. Your "evidence" consists of:

Sidegrades will make Warframe gameplay stale.

Sidegrades will remove progression.

If you can upgrade a weapon to be comparable to a more powerful counterpart, there is no reason for the more powerful counterpart to exist.

People will not try out new weapons if the new weapons aren't more powerful.

New content is useless if it doesn't replace old content.

The problem with that is that these are all your opinions. They are not in any way, shape, or form some sort of empirical truths, so you cannot present them as evidence and expect people to take you seriously. That is not arguing. It is bickering.

4. Yes, they are your preferences. You don't want us to be able to make what you consider "low tier weaponry" into higher tier weaponry. It bothers you when we want to be able to do that, even though what we do with our weapons has absolutely zero effect on what you do with your weapons. Our weapons becoming higher tier does not make your weapons lower tier. Our weapons becoming higher tier does not make your lower tier weapons higher tier. You are perfectly welcome to refuse bringing beginner weapons to end-game because you don't think that they belong there, but you have not one valid reason as to why we shouldn't be able to. You only ever say "You can't because I don't think you should. It will ruin the game [for me.]" An optional feature cannot possibly "ruin the game" if players aren't forced to make use of it. Adding in a system for upgrading weaker weapons would make people like me very happy, and people like you can simply ignore that system entirely. The only reason you are so dead set against this is because the idea of us not following the exact same rules that you do irritates you. That's it. That is the entirety of your argument, sans-opinions. And that argument is selfish and weak.

If you want absolute proof of the fact that your "progression" system doesn't exist in any form even close to the rigid system with no exceptions you are referencing, look at how weapons are qualified as "starter" or "beginner." The starter weapons are only considered "starter" weapons because they are given out to new players for free. Of those three weapons, only the MK-1 Braton and Skana make any further reference to being "starter" weapons. Beyond that, not a single weapon in the game is specified as "beginner" or "low-tier."

The concept of "beginner" weapons is a social construct dictated by the generalized opinions of the Warframe community. "This weapon is better than that weapon," so on and so forth. If you want to base weapon power on Mastery Rank, then the Pangolin Sword at Mastery Rank 2 should be more powerful than the Nami Skyla at Mastery Rank 0. The Braton Prime should be just as weak as the regular Braton, because both are Mastery Rank 0. The Boltor Prime should be just as weak as the Boltor, because both are Mastery Rank 0. The Latron Prime should be just as weak as the Latron. Many of the Prime weapons do not have any higher Mastery prerequisites than their normal counterparts. Many weapons of lower Mastery Rank outperform weapons of higher Mastery Rank.

The Mastery Rank system as a "system of progression" is riddled with inconsistencies, contains numerous gaps, and shows no indication of changing anytime soon. "High tier" and "low tier" weapons are labeled such based on the assessments of the weapons by the community as "powerful" or "weak." You might say that the Dragon Nikana indicates that DE is moving towards a Mastery-based tiering system. That's not wrong. However, I'll direct you to the newly released Amprex for further consideration. It's a Mastery Rank 5 version of the Mastery 6 Synapse with slightly less damage but double the status chance and the ability to chain between multiple targets. It is obviously intended as a CC-based sidegrade of the Synapse. Whether or not DE has succeeded in balancing the new weapon remains to be seen, but a sidegrade weapon with a lower Mastery requirement indicates that DE has a much more flexible interpretation of Mastery Rank than you'd like to believe.

I'm not saying that the Mastery System doesn't have the potential to be fleshed out into an actual system of progression, but it is very far from "the way the game works." It is the way you want the game to work. Most of us here aren't even inclined to say that the game shouldn't work that way. We're just making the unreasonable request that you don't trample all over the parts of the game that would make things fun for us in the process.

5. You said that there was no progression in Dark Souls, and that it was therefore a terrible game.

Have you even played Dark Souls? There is most definitely progression: it comes in the form of leveling up your character, learning new spells, finding new items to help you stay alive, and completing the story. There's also progression in the form of upgrading your equipment, but you don't seem to accept that as a valid form of progression.

The reason why weapons are upgrade-able and not separated into tiers is that each and every type of weapon handles very differently. Trying out a new weapon doesn't have to make you more powerful because it is a very different experience. Upgrading a longsword from standard form to +15 turns it from an okay sword into a very powerful sword. It won't, however, outperform a Silver Knight Straight Sword, and upgrading a Silver Knight Straight Sword to its full potential is a lot easier than carrying a longsword.

http://darksouls.wikidot.com/longsword

http://darksouls.wikidot.com/silver-knight-straight-sword

There is weapon progression, it just isn't mandatory. The game isn't any less fun because of that. To the contrary, it gets a ton of replay value by encouraging players to try out new things and experimenting with different approaches to certain scenarios. Replay value is something that Warframe would stand to benefit from quite a bit. Fighting Black Dragon Kalameet with a scimitar is a much different experience than fighting him with a Black Knight Halberd, and it is not necessarily worse. You said that "nothing is better, nothing is worse." As you can see from the stats of just these two weapons, that is definitely not the case. There are upgrades, there are downgrades. Using a Scimitar over Quelaag's Furysword is definitely gimping yourself. The differences are noticeable, but small enough that they don't limit freedom of choice. There's no reason a character shouldn't prefer their starter sword over a late-game Boss Soul Weapon, if they want to. There's no reason a character shouldn't scrap their starter weapon for the next best thing that comes along, if they want to.

Nothing to show for your effort if you carry a starter weapon from start to finish? Total BS. The fact that you finished Dark Souls is something to show for your effort. People who reference Dark Souls when discussing Warframe aren't trying to create "DarkSoulsFrame." They are acknowledging well-implemented and entertaining systems of gameplay that can be adapted to suit Warframe's needs. They're introducing good ideas that can be built upon and expanded upon into excellent ideas. Don't write off a game as 'terrible' just because it doesn't demand that you pick up a new sword every five levels. Dark Souls' positive critical reception and the fact that it was ported to PC in response to popular demand should stand as a testament to the potential of games without weapon-based progression systems to succeed.

Edited April 24, 2014 by DiabolusUrsus

[Guest]

Nothing different, we have weapons, new weapons will be released in the future up until a point. There are only so many guns they can release. We still have older weapons competing with new.

 

We will have new weapons, yes

 

... You're saying the game can only have a limited amount of guns. I say the game can have as many guns as DE wants to make.

Having balanced old weapons doesn't prevent new content from being released. New content can be released regardless of whats already present.

 

 

I don't see any new weapon dominating the old. Brakk, top-tier secondary is still top-tier. Marelok, whilst amazing, has not toppled this gun. We will have more choice come the future.

 

What happens to the Brakk when introducing new more difficult content that only the new guns can efficiently tackle? Restricted to the newer guns to play efficiently. Newer guns dominating the old.

 

 

Except you can still use the 'ol machine gun if you so please. Currently reasons for weapon changes are to try them out and to increase mastery points. This doesn't stop you from using your favourite, although if your favourite is a low-tier then trying to get it into a higher ranked area won't exactly end well.

 

"although if your favourite is a low-tier then trying to get it into a higher ranked area won't exactly end well."

 

My point exactly, to be able to have the low-tier weapons viable to use in higher ranked areas

 

 

Natural progression at work. WF has this, you go to a new area and some weapons will just not be high enough to handle it. Why this causes such a problem I don't know, in any other game people would toss aside weapons and go for something that could handle it. Sure, you can band-aid weaker stuff to handle higher content here, but only to a point.

 

A proglem if you want to use the machine gun in the high-tier area. This game doesn't have to be like any other game.

"Sure, you can band-aid weaker stuff to handle higher content here, but only to a point."

 

This is the current mechanic at hand. My argument is to change it.

 

 

If the Nikana is just as good / can be just as good, why upgrade? They are in two different tiers, in a sense you get to keep your weapon for a higher tier (albeit different skin)

 

Different skin, but also different damage mechanic. Where D.nika gets damage from crits and status, the nika would be scaled to be just as viable but only in slash damage (as that is what the nikana is currently good for in its place).

 

There is more to selection than power. Aesthetics can play a role in choice as well.

 

Except this isn't DarkSoulsFrame, this is Warframe. DS makes me shudder because there is no progression there at all, nothing is better nothing is worse, nothing to show for your effort if you're just using the starter weapon from start-end. Upgrading it doesn't make it a good sword. Something I hope (and so far thankfully) never comes to WF.

 

Not trying to make it darksoulsframe either, just capitalizing on what is in my opinion a good mechanic. If you think there's no progression in Dark Souls, then I suggest you delve deeper into the game. Upgrading weapons in Dark Souls to keep the difficulty at a certain level is progression, just as grdining levels in Final Fantasy to keep the difficulty of that game at a certain level is progression.

 

If you don't upgrade in DaS (if you don't equip something other than the buster sword in FF7), you can still beat that game, but it will be much more difficult and will take a lot more consideration of tactics and development of skill, but that's purposely gimping yourself for challenge at that point.

 

Not everyone likes the style of everything new that comes out, and not everyone likes to be overwhelmed with challenge. If the only thing standing in his/her way is a weak weapon, they can (in what we currently have) either get a new weapon, not experience the enw content, or stop playing altogether. If they had the option to upgrade the weak weapon, then that's a problem solved.

 

 

Progression, not power-creep. Power-creep would entail we have stronger, more well designed enemies and we require stronger weapons to handle them. When we use these weapons everywhere else they're insane. To cope, mobs are made harder and potentially new stronger mobs brought out, then we need new, more powerful weapons. So on so forth till you've got the redundant argument of "weapons that deal 5 million damage". That would be power creep because it would render old weapons entirely useless. WF doesn't have this, the only ones who could legitimately be called stronger are the Prosecutors - who to me were a disappointment. I was expecting organisation from teams, "I'll take Fire/Lightning/Ice/Poison", for the Prosecutors would be immune to anything other than the element, yet I one-shotted via Channeling a Toxic Prosecutor with my D-Nikana, and I use Corrosive/Fire combo.

 

You aren't looking into the future. What we have now is manageable. What will come in the future won't be with older weapons if new content keeps gets stronger. Fine, I'll play your game, not power-creep. Progression. Where the enemies are much difficult in the new content, and only new higher-tiered guns can beat them while keeping the difficulty at a cetain level.

 

Now the argument I'm trying to make is to also allow old low-tier weapons to perform well against those enemies too.

 

 

Except Melee 2.0 revamped weapons, made them good hitters and certainly not obsolete. Gun wise the only thing that comes to mind as obsolete is MK-1, which is a starter. WF abilities that kill on 4 already exist somewhat, and is a different argument to be had (and starts approaching on that 5mill damage argument)

 

The concept of melee and guns are obsolete when faced with the concept of innate abilities that dwarf external weaponry in the job of killing. With the way you say things should be, we should discard everything old and only have the new things. Not everyone favors the new, and no one should be forced to it if the old can have the possibility of competing with the new.

 

 

Again, non-applicable examples. In those cases things would be challenged and changed because of peoples sense of right and wrong. That is not the same as here. You can already fare well with low-tier gear and raise it up somewhat through modding, but it still doesn't come above the next tier because it was designed for specific areas. No matter how hard you try, a Sword cannot become a Boomerang.

 

They are applicable. A sense of right and wrong, a sense of what should and shouldn't, a sense of how this game should or shouldn't be.

 

It is not about making a sword a boomerang (although that is pretty cool, "Tales of Graces" anyone?). It's about making an old weak sword as viable as the new strong boomerang, but in it's own strengths (where the sword is upclose and instant, the boomerang can hit from afar, but must return in order to be used again. Neither more useful than one another, but both tools for getting the job of killing done)

 

 

We already can, we just cannot make Swords into Boomerangs. The Penta, the Soma, the Synapse, the Ogris, the Brakk, have not been rendered obsolete by new content (although some may argue the new Corpus tech thing may invalidate Synapse, I reserve my argument on that till I've played with it). Hell the Bo has been given new life by melee 2.0, I tried out recently Ankyros Prime with a stance and my lord did I love it. This is a case of updating making old gear useable.

 

What happens when introducing new more difficult content that only the new guns can efficiently tackle? Restricted to the newer guns to play efficiently. Newer guns dominating the old.

Melee 2.0 buffs are exactly what I'd like to happen with old low-tier weaponry. Not in the sense of making a new mechanic for the low-tier weapons, but in terms of how well they perform in comparison to the new content. Just as you said, melee is now usable in the new content, and I'd like low-tier guns to be usable in future content as well.

 

No, I just take what I see from peoples posts and apply it to the game. Orange doesn't become blue regardless

 

As do we all. Lest our arguments have nothing to be backed with.

 

 

I do have arguments, which is why I've taken apart other peoples. Quite a few people have however, posted opinion as an argument.

Dominant paradigms within games do change - see Acrid and Damage 2.0

Feedback - to give player feedback to the Devs on what changes they think should be made, what they'd like to be made, their vision of the game and what direction they'd like the game to go in. Sadly, a lot of opinions and not arguments are given.

 

You can only have an argument if you have an opinion, a thesis, that contrasts with the beliefs of another. If you can support why you believe something, its a good argument. If you can't support it, the idea can be dismissed just as easily as it is made.

 

Not my preferences, how the game works. If you take low-tier weaponry into high-tier area it would not bother me in the slightest. Just don't then come running to the forums saying "x should be stronger, it's not fair". That essentially is the crux of the majority of arguments. I won't take beginner weapons to end-game because they don't belong there. The key is in the word starter/beginner-weapons.

It is how the game currently works, and you chose to side with keeping them that way, your preference as you prefer to keep things the way they are.

 

You can't tell people not to voice their opinions no matter how ridiculous the request. That is the nature of the forum; to discuss whether in agreement or not.

 

I believe the way things are currently in-game, it's all fair. If the rule of the game is you MUST have new weapons in order to deal with new content, then that is fair because it doesn't discriminate those who play. Just don't expect some of us to play it (or play it the same way). Although, there's nothin wrong with equalness, and trying to make certain aspects of a game equal.

 

In the end it is DE's decision, and if they say no to what I feel should be in teh game, I'll still be playing. I just really enjoy the debate.

 

Your conservatism vs my liberalism (on the current argument at hand).

[Guest]

And I'm saying at some point, DE will stop making weapons and focus on other additions such as "moar danglies". Old content is not often invalidated by new content - see Penta, Brakk, Ogris, Latron Prime etc.

 

New content has been introduced, Brakk is still the dominant.

 

So far, out of all the new content we've had enemy wise they haven't exactly gotten stronger. Prosecutors are the closest thing and yet they're still just...meh. Old tier weaponry can perform just fine - see examples.

 

I thought we were talking here about progression where new content is harder and only new weapons can efficiently tackle said new content. I'm arguing that this kind of progression is bad (if you take this as new content being harder, new weapons being stronger, old weapons being disregarded), not that what we have works.

 

 

I have yet to see this happen at all in WF, and don't ever actually see it happening. Given that we can have multiple elemental loadouts, we will be able to handle anything.

 

But with the way you want things to go, it will happen. Elements are scaled with weapon stats, low tier weapons wont deal as much elemental damage.

 

 

Except they were never designed for those higher ranked areas.

 

The point of the arguing is to make them so.

 

 

Except theres no need to. Why push for things to go to areas they were never designed for?

 

Why not?

 

 

Pointless to have, D-Nikana is an upgrade and a reason to progress to higher MR. Having a lower-tier weapon being able to match higher-tier removes the point and reason to progress, why bother if you can just stick with what you have. Sidegrading weapons is bad - if we take sidegrade in this example as the same weapon, different skin and stats. We have this with Bows, one reason I'm disappointed in them.

 

Sidegrading weapons is bad - if we take sidegrade in this example as the same weapon, different skin and stats

Why is this bad, why does it remove the reason to progress.

 

We all start with skana, I don't like the skana, even if it was as powerful as dual cleavers, I would use the cleavers. I would progress in rank towards the cleavers because I like the concept of two axes better than a single sword.

 

Not everyone plays for power. But if the experience were to be cut short because of it, then I will be submiting to use of the higher ranked weapon, gimping myself, or stop playing entirely.

 

 

Except it's not a good mechanic, there is no progression whatsoever. You have your weapon at the start, upgrade it, no need to change to anything else. Difficulty is meant to scale, it gets harder and harder as you go on. Keeping it at the same level is a joke.

 

How is there no progression? Why shouldn't you change from an equally powerful low rank sobek to a high rank soma? I don't prefer the sobek because of the spread and falloff of shotguns. I like the rate of fire, crit and accuracy of the soma, so i'll play with the soma. I'll progress in rank towards the soma.

 

Difficulty is meant to scale, it gets harder and harder as you go on. Keeping it at the same level is a joke.

Your opinion, content can get as hard as it can, but the option to use an old weapon, to work to make it so that we can use it on the same level as stronger weapons would be nice. Not a joke to me, your opinion.

 

 

WF has the ability to upgrade weaker weapons. The point is, that they were never designed for the areas people wish to take them to. It's like taking a Fire weapon to a Water zone and wanting it to be as viable as using an Electricity weapon.

 

They aren't currently designed no, thats what we're arguing for. For change in this aspect of the game.

 

Its not like taking fire to water and hoping it works. Different tiers are not different elements because if electricity were tier 10, then everything below it should be weaker than electricity regardless of name (earth, water, fire, etc).

 

An example that properlly illustrates what this is, is like judging happiness. More money, better social status (high tier), does not equal hapiness (power).

 

Taking your example with the D.nika, its a low rank kogake (grakata) vs a high rank D.nika (soma). I don't like playing with katanas (the soma's aesthetic). They aren't my style. And If I'm forced int he future to use the D.nika because its rank 8 and superior to all other melee weapons, then I will be submiting to use of the higher ranked weapon, gimping myself, or stop playing entirely.

 

 

For the majority of the game, we use weapons to kill, not WF skills. My point is simple, we don't discard everything old, we simply use it in it's intended areas.

 

Intended area? Why use a MK1 at on apollodorus when you can use the more powerful Soma to make the job easier?

 

 

They are applicable. A sense of right and wrong, a sense of what should and shouldn't, a sense of how this game should or shouldn't be.

 

Trying to change a game into what it isn't.

 

So Warframe is about restriction? About being forced to utilize only the best weapons to prosper later on down the road?

 

It is not about making a sword a boomerang (although that is pretty cool, "Tales of Graces" anyone?). It's about making an old weak sword as viable as the new strong boomerang, but in it's own strengths (where the sword is upclose and instant, the boomerang can hit from afar, but must return in order to be used again. Neither more useful than one another, but both tools for getting the job of killing done)

see point about other "sidegrades". 

 

That point doesn't refute mine.

 

 

What happens when introducing new more difficult content that only the new guns can efficiently tackle? Restricted to the newer guns to play efficiently. Newer guns dominating the old.

Melee 2.0 buffs are exactly what I'd like to happen with old low-tier weaponry. Not in the sense of making a new mechanic for the low-tier weapons, but in terms of how well they perform in comparison to the new content. Just as you said, melee is now usable in the new content, and I'd like low-tier guns to be usable in future content as well.

 

In order for that to work, you'd need a guns 2.0 and damage 3.0, re-working of the mods etc. Huge comparison to M2.0 and one that changes what WF is. Low-tier is low-tier, they should not be used in higher areas - see Fire weapon in Water zone.

 

 I said for the performance to change, not the mechanic. Stat balance, that's it.

 

 

You can only have an argument if you have an opinion, a thesis, that contrasts with the beliefs of another. If you can support why you believe something, its a good argument. If you can't support it, the idea can be dismissed just as easily as it is made.

 

You can have an argument, a good argument at that by having facts and evidence. Beliefs don't work

 

What is an argument? an exchange of diverging or opposite views.

 

Views = Opinions = Beliefs.

 

None of the three can exist without first having a reason as to why. That reason is the support.

 

Whether the support is logical will make your belief either good support or bad support, which will then lead to whether to not you have a good or bad argument.

 

 

It is how the game currently works, and you chose to side with keeping them that way, your preference as you prefer to keep things the way they are.

You can't tell people not to voice their opinions no matter how ridiculous the request. That is the nature of the forum; to discuss whether in agreement or not.

I believe the way things are currently in-game, it's all fair. If the rule of the game is you MUST have new weapons in order to deal with new content, then that is fair because it doesn't discriminate those who play. Just don't expect some of us to play it (or play it the same way). Although, there's nothin wrong with equalness, and trying to make certain aspects of a game equal.

In the end it is DE's decision, and if they say no to what I feel should be in teh game, I'll still be playing. I just really enjoy the debate.

Your conservatism vs my liberalism (on the current argument at hand).

 

I'm not arguing to keep the status quo, because I'm aware new things will come out. My point is trying to change something that is central to the game will affect it negatively, hard. Some things will never be equal nor should they, they operate at different levels (such as low and high tier). This is unavoidable in progression, because things will get more difficult. Again, this is a good thing in a game, things should get more difficult as time goes on, and we need weapons/skills that can handle this. Yes, via modding we can bring lower-tier weapons into play and make them work, through skill and innovation. But at the end of the day, we can only take that so far because they were never designed for the content.

I have never once said "don't bother voicing opinion". If you want to, go ahead. If you post it as opinion without evidence, I will point that out, I will give examples as to why something may be bad or good etc.

 

You are arguing to keep the status quo by arguing that this new idea is bad.

 

Some things will never be equal nor should they, they operate at different levels (such as low and high tier).

 

Why shouldn't low-tier weapons be equal in power to high-tier weapons?

 

This is unavoidable in progression, because things will get more difficult.

 

I don't expect the game to get easier

 

Again, this is a good thing in a game, things should get more difficult as time goes on, and we need weapons/skills that can handle this

 

Difficulty is good, but that doesnt refute why low-tier weapons shouldn't be as strong as high-tier weapons

 

The difficulty will remain the same regardless if all weapons were equal. The difference will be that you have much more options to use than just the high-tier weapons.

 

 

I have never once said "don't bother voicing opinion".

 

Just don't then come running to the forums saying "x should be stronger, it's not fair".

 

Don't lie to me

 

 

Some things will never be equal nor should they, they operate at different levels

Your opinion

[neKroMancer]

Why are we trying to persuade this guy anyway? It is obvious that Nightman will never see the point of allowing lower-tier weapon to grow with the players.

 

A player who doesn't even understand that sidegrade =/= reskin arguing about balance and tiering? This won't go anywhere with his fixed ideology and refusal to understand other's context and opinion. 

[DiabolusUrsus]

Why are we trying to persuade this guy anyway? It is obvious that Nightman will never see the point of allowing lower-tier weapon to grow with the players.

 

A player who doesn't even understand that sidegrade =/= reskin arguing about balance and tiering? This won't go anywhere with his fixed ideology and refusal to understand other's context and opinion. 

 

At this particular point in time I'm just wasting my time here because reasons. 

Even though he's not likely to ever understand what I'm saying to him, the more he talks the more clear things should become for anyone otherwise inclined to agree with him. 

I'm looking at this as an odd sort of meta-discussion aimed at a silent and anonymous third-party with the hopes that Nightman might accidentally stumble into some sort of understanding in the process. 

[XRAY0128]

1 Nightman, your "argument" is also an opinion.

2 You have still failed to acknowledge that people will use new weapons just for the novelty.

3 You cant argue that a change doesnt work because it doesnt work that way already. If that was logical, nothing would ever change.

Some of the most replayable games offer the player multiple ×VIABLE× options, not restricting the player for their weapon or character preferences.

You are still unable to comprehend noone is saying that weapons should be the same. You still fail to comprehend that there are other ways to progress besides weapons.

Arguing with you is pointless since you just construct completely different arguments and attack those instead of arguing on the actual topic.