Jump to content


PC Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Keylan118

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

472 profile views
  1. Parasitic Link does not use armor, and neither does Warding Halo, at least to reduce damage. The only way they 'use' armor is that their duration would be based off your armor, but that doesn't mean they're less effective in reducing damage, just that they last not as long at higher levels (Parasitic link relies on enemies though, so really that's only true for Warding Halo which calculates its ehp from your frame's armor).
  2. I actually love Revenant's current abilities. I do agree he needs casting times to be quicker, but his abilities aren't crap. His invincibility is unrivaled at higher levels, his CC can do a lot to throw off aggression and works well in interception at higher levels when immediate murder isn't incredibly easy. I do think Reave needs to be buffed, since it's only use is scaling damage which Magus Lockdown can easily do better. If you're using Reave for healing, you're dead at higher levels and there's not much of a point. Dance Macabre could do with a nerf to that energy drain. I like playing Revenant as is. Anyone who thinks he's crap probably either doesn't understand how to play him or doesn't like the playstyle, which is fine but go play a different frame then. Nidus potentially outranks Revenant in terms of tanking because A) Nidus has the ability to revive himself and B) Revenant's mesmer stacks can go away too fast and/or take a bit to refresh, making you vulnerable for that duration. In a game where a single shot can kill, that time is important. Personally, I find Revenant to be the better tank simply because Nidus will eventually lose to high levels (though, granted, those levels are very high), while Revenant's overall tanking ability isn't too reliant on enemy level not being ridiculous.
  3. These changes don't really make sense to me. Firstly, using enemies against themselves will never be much of anything other than CC or to deflect aggression. If they were much more, then they'd be CC+extra, or Extra+CC and outclass other frames. Nekros is all about the desecration. He's the guy sticking his hands into corpses and pulling out loot from who knows where. I'd rather we go in the opposite direction and remove his gimmicky shadows and soul punch to focus more on desecration. But, okay, let's focus on Nekros' summoning. I grant that Soul Punch needs to go, and I don't particularly care about the replacement you have. It's fine to me. However, desecrate as a bad passive is now really, really bad. It doesn't fit or synergize with the summoning kit. It's like Frost's tacked-on passive, just there because passives exist and is a holdover of the old desecrate. Either commit and get rid of it or make it synergize better, perhaps by making it have a chance of dropping loot that somehow helps your summons. Additionally, Soul Siphon is stupid. No way around it. It's Inaros' devour, which is bad and locks you into place and reduces your DPS to zilch. I'd rather it be like a totem or something that you cast on a dead body, erecting something like Wisp's reservoirs (like, a cross with the corpse on it because Nekros), but for your shadows instead of squad, or maybe buffing both, or maybe making enemies panic and go crazy. Something better than Inaros' most useless ability. Revenant's current kit is actually pretty good, and I don't think he needs a rework at all. Now, a few changes maybe. Revenant's casting times are a bit long. However, Revenant does exactly what he's supposed to. He's a great tank with good CC, especially at higher levels. Your changes reduce Revenant to nothing. Do you know how long thralls last? Not long enough. It's hard to get to 7 from 2 thralls when those thralls keep dying to your squad first. Does he lose a charge for Mesmer every time a thrall dies? Because, if so, he's not going to have any charges 90% of the time. Even if he doesn't lose that charge when a thrall dies, he does when he's hit, which isn't good enough for plain damage reduction. Damage nullification, on the other hand, is much better for Revenant and is the only thing keeping him alive currently. Damage reduction makes him a worse Mesa (she gets 95% DR without having to care about stupid thralls dying immediately to allies/charges and you want to limit Revenant to 85%, and Mesa is not an amazing or even close to good tank), except you replaced the amazing damage ability with... negligible CC. This is a terrible redesign that kills any sort of viable high-level build for Revenant, and would probably just kill Revenant as a frame anybody plays. So, I think your summoning idea for Nekros is... passable, but ruins Nekros' niche. Summoning/Minions have never been nor will ever be good so long as armor scaling exists, or it will be stupidly good. There's no real way to properly balance it without tweaking the numbers super hard. Nekros has always been about defiling bodies, though, which I quite like the idea of. He's a defiler of the dead, not a necromancer. Stop trying to make him a necromancer. I think your rework for Revenant is completely pointless and just a bad nerf for a frame that doesn't need a nerf. You changed his mesmer skin into something so horrendous that arcanes would be a practical necessity to keep Revenant alive, and mesmer skin is the best ability on Revenant, meaning you killed his kit and replaced it with nothing. Revenant already has the problem of too-long-casting-times, and all your 'charge to hold' stuff would just make it worse. That stuff should probably just be built-in to make Revenant just the slightest more viable since your rework as is makes him... not viable. Ember would be a better pick than Revenant if your rework came to pass.
  4. One of these please, along with stopping shields from being completely useless by preventing any scaling bypass of shielding (so long as that bypassing damage is scaling, shields become useless).
  5. Okay. What's wrong with semantics? Again, going back to a prior post, what was the point of your argument, then? It was asserting something about semantics in the first place. Twist? What twist? I've literally just pointed out how these 'tangent arguments' are actually connected and relevant to the main discussion. Well, no, I have the gall to claim you shouldn't bring up things that are irrelevant or tangential. You should consider yourself a hypocrite because you brought up something you admit is tangential/irrelevant, the whole post with the call to action for DE, and not in response to something I said that was irrelevant or tangential but in response to me asking the purpose of your post, which is anything but irrelevant. Sure, I brought up things similar to that before, but you called them irrelevant so I left them by the wayside, then you bring them up again. Insult me all you want. I don't care if you would like to play the fool and let your emotions override logic. I have responded with a clear and thought-out argument with several points. You respond with things to the effect of 'that's irrelevant', 'you're wrong', and 'semantics'. I respond by disproving your claims of such irrelevancy, and you just repeat your previous claims again as if they're somehow stronger now. I never denied the challenge was self-imposed. But the challenge, as I said, needs to exist within the game first and foremost. You draw the challenge out of the game, not magically create a challenge on your own (if the latter were the case, no game would be necessary). K.
  6. So, you ignored the entire point of what I said, which was to choose to use weaker equipment, and that if you are challenged at any point even by using weaker equipment, the game is challenging you. The game has to be. Otherwise, you wouldn't be challenged, even if you did help the challenge along by giving yourself a handicap. Tangent 1: Not a tangent at all. It's a metaphor, hard as it may be to understand. They are equipment you can potentially use to get from Point A to Point B, yet we call it a challenge for you to hike from Point A to Point B. In much the same way, limiting yourself in a game to challenge yourself still means the game is challenging you. Tangent 2: Not a tangent at all because at the time I had perceived your posts to mean something to the effect of 'game should be a challenge regardless of what you use', which does bring up the point of difficulties and the fact that people accept them. You can choose to play on easy or hard. I still think it's somewhat relevant, because your posts have an underlying tone that insinuates DE should make the game difficult in and of itself regardless of equipment, but you say it's irrelevant despite going on a tangent about wanting DE to do something about how easy the game is. Tangent 3: Well, actually, this isn't a tangent and remains relevant. Surprise, surprise. You gave a call to action to DE when I asked what the point of your original post was, and that call to action is directly related to this and even has the same topic. You then proceed to call that bit of your post somehow irrelevant despite it being an attempt to explain the point of your post. So I guess this is irrelevant, but only if every single post you've made in this thread is also somehow irrelevant. Each of these things I did indeed bring up, because at the time I perceived them as relevant, as they were indeed. You repeatedly convey your point, but you don't seem to understand my argument is denouncing your point. Don't repeat your point, give me a reason why it is valid. See the debate I presented, and have repeatedly presented, that you seem to magically ignore or dismiss for some unexplained reason: "[...] if you are challenged at any point even by using weaker equipment, the game is challenging you. The game has to be. Otherwise, you wouldn't be challenged, even if you did help the challenge along by giving yourself a handicap." So your statement, "Since OP did create a challenge for themself, is their experience representative of the challenge of the actual game? No." is false. Their experience is representative of the challenge of the actual game, perhaps a challenge created by both the game and OP, but a challenge from the game nonetheless. Hence, the argument.
  7. I'm not agreeing with you, my previous points stand, I was just using your language how you use it. I'm repeating myself because it's still a valid point against your original post. This still works: I went off on the tangent because you mentioned it. If you don't care, don't mention it. You even gave a call-to-action to DE.
  8. Close enough. If you make full use of everything at your disposal, sure. I don't see how this is a rebuttal or adds anything new. The challenge in the game still exists, and the game is challenging you (in this hypothetical scenario) even if you are helping it along by not equipping or using certain things. The game must be challenging at some point for you to challenge yourself with the game. So want does indeed matter now, because you want DE to do something, and want the game to challenge you (as you define it). This then goes back to my whole argument of the distinction between the challenge despite maximization and the challenge by handicapping. I'm not saying you don't have a leg to stand on. I very much understand wanting a challenge and wanting to see how far you can go against that challenge without ever breaking past that challenge. However, I find much the same pleasure in creating a challenge for myself within the confines of the game in a manner of min/maxing the challenge for myself, and some prefer the game be easy, so I prefer being overpowered if you min/max normally because I retain the option to not do so and others get to be the gods they want to be. I'm not saying the balance is perfect as is, far from it. Your suggestion comes at the cost of others' enjoyment. Some do like playing as gods. Not every game need be a game of reflexes and following the proper guides. Something to think on.
  9. In my defense, the very first post of the entire thread is about arcanes, and your post doesn't mention arcanes directly but likens them to cutting off your arm. You could try defining the confines of the argument. My problem with that is that the game need be challenging you for your challenge to exist in the first place. The game could still be not challenging without the arcanes or what have you. It could set every enemy stat to 1 and put you into godmode. The game has to be a challenge at some point for you to challenge yourself in the confines of that game. But, regardless, within the context of the wider thread, what's that supposed to mean? You're saying wanting/needing is irrelevant. Okay. You're saying there's a distinction and one is challenging yourself and the other is the game challenging you. Okay. But since we don't care about wanting/needing, why does this distinction matter? The first post is supposed to be a rebuttal to the claim that Warframe is easy (I assume), and your post tries to refute that by being punctilious? What does this distinction change and why does that matter? Regardless of your distinction, there is a challenge within Warframe, whether that be from yourself or from the game according to your own prior wording, and what changes depending on where this challenge comes from?
  10. I find it confusing that you would choose to switch from talking about arcanes to talking about the wider game without mentioning it, but so be it. This doesn't address my point that progression is more than just using better things, otherwise Mastery Rank should only care about the 'best' equipment. It'd be nice for you to prove that, not decide it. I haven't seen a reason yet presented as to why my points are invalid. First off, I thought you meant the methods by which game devs increase difficulty for games, such as increasing enemy accuracy, in that specific instance as it pertains to comparing increasing game difficulty to barring yourself from certain powerups or what have you. Secondly, how does your wider picture of increasing difficulty matter as it pertains to the idea of preventing yourself from using X things to increase difficulty? Or, in other words, why go for that instead of the other? Why is your chosen method more valid than the other? This was the point of my discussion here. So, thirdly, want/need does matter here. The entire point of my discussion was to reason out why we need/want method X or Y over the other.
  11. Well, no. Now you're misdirecting. We were talking about arcanes. Only arcanes. That was the point of this entire post. Don't suddenly move the goalpost. Furthermore, it's not avoiding this progression. You can still get those things. You just don't need to use them. That's a fact. Progression isn't necessarily about using things as it is about having things. You're dismissing valid points by claiming they're irrelevant tangents and then quite hilariously calling me bad at debate, which is uncalled for and actually irrelevant. Focus on your task, hunter. Need, want, etc. is very relevant. I don't see how it ever isn't when talking game design. What players need and what players want should always be considered, and can be two very different things at times. You simply stating they're irrelevant doesn't actually make them so. I would like some reasoning behind this statement. The point is stat differences. That's the meaning of my whole point behind the 2 methods being 'functionally the same'. The reason why those other methods aren't relevant is because the entire point is X method and Y method are functionally the same, but X is accepted and Y isn't. For X and Y to be the same, you have to disregard those other methods. They're not relevant because X does exist without those other methods and is still accepted. You're not bringing up an argument here, you're just seemingly deflecting the actual issue and/or moving the goalpost. It's hard to be more than 100% sensible, but I can try. Request denied.
  12. Progression is not just in the form of stats, otherwise any game that tries to have a semblance of stable balance is suddenly thrown out the window. Goodbye Hearthstone and any other TCG. You ignored this whole part, 'chief': We don't need to increase difficulty via those means, now do we? Plenty of games just increase difficulty by only increasing the damage and/or health of enemies. These games have valid methods for some reason, yet doing the same by unequipping an unessential item is somehow bad. I can try to dumb-down my language if you would like.
  13. To be fair, it's not really all that much of a 'swathes of progression' and there are other reasons to grind the same stuff. I do grant that acquiring these arcanes can be difficult, especially specific ones, but that means you went out of your way to make the game easier. You still don't need to equip it. It's functionally a trophy, and acquiring trophies is also a form of progression, so you don't need to actually use the arcanes just because you now have that trophy because trophies aren't normally use-able. Well, yes, you do make yourself weaker. Just as choosing a harder difficulty functionally makes you weaker in comparison to your enemies. It's the same result by different methods, and these different methods aren't very distinct. If I have 100 HP and my enemy does 10 damage (I weakened myself), it takes 10 shots to kill me. If I have 1000 HP and my enemy does 100 damage (higher difficulty), it takes 10 shots to kill me. I don't see the logic in accepting one method while rejecting the other. Well, sure. Ever seen a man play through Dark Souls with a literal banana controller? Even 'challenging games' have players that make them even more challenging by choice. Why is it the game's fault that you've chosen to use a tool it gave you? To me, it's like complaining about holes being too easy to dig when you're handed a shovel. Don't use the shovel. Problem solved.
  • Create New...