ArcherAz
-
Posts
77 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by ArcherAz
-
-
Perhaps we should have some rule like "keep spoilers warnings up until the next big lore reveal" so when war within launches we can stop putting spoiler warnings on second dream content and put spoilers on war within.
The only problem I see with this is that it might be a long while till the next lore reveal.
-
to be honest, my overall experience with the people of trade chat has been fantastic. I've been able to haggle and have been haggled, I've chatted with some of my buyers and sellers, and for the most part we always give a goodbye after the trade. I think saying all of trade chat is unsocial or rude is an overgeneraled statement that relies solely on personal experience
-
18 hours ago, Carnage2K4 said:
LOL, there is a non-fantasy magic???... okay...
"magic being science we don't understand"... Science means 'knowledge'... Therefore "Natural Science" (the normal use of 'science') means knowledge of the natural world... So you're saying magic is the knowledge we have, that we don't understand... it's basically a nonsensical sentence...
If you mean just 'a phenomena we don't understand = magic', then that too is wrong, because magic is a reference to an unknown supernatural force used to alter something...
Something not known to science is not magic, it's just unknown, magic alludes to a specific 'thing' as an 'explanation'...
As someone in a scientific field, both your statements make my face hurt...
In regards to your statement "magic is knowledge we don't understand... It's basically a nonsensical sentence."
I think that it is entirely possible to have knowledge but not understand said knowledge. To me, knowledge is informations, however understanding is knowing the reasoning behind informations as well as the application of that information. As such, it is entirely possible to have knowledge, but not understand the reasoning behind it.
However, I don't mean to say that knowledge that you dont understand, is magic, I just merely wanted to point out that knowledge does not always equal comeplete understanding.
-
3 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:
Effectively, yeah. If you are unwilling to actually use the systems in place already, you should just be forced to suck it up if someone runs something you don't like. That's why it is called public matchmaking.
Not really. You had the usual suspects making the same topics on the forums prior to this change. Now you have, as evidenced by the graph shown in DE's own post, a massive uptick in forum activity. Simply looking at the threads being created shows that the general response is negative. The same can be seen across chat channels in the game itself.
When the forums can be graphically shown to have a massive uptick in activity because of a change, enough of one to force DE to respond directly to the criticisms of the change, yeah you can call that a larger percentage than were unhappy with the status quo.
Blind ignorance isn't something I condone, thus "you must be kidding." You can have faith all you like, personally my faith ended after the 5th or 6th update without it being addressed. Again, this has been mentioned previously over the past several YEARS. Enemy balancing is a major issue and has been for quite some time and it has been acknowledged by DE for YEARS. You are attempting to say we just need to wait when the reality is we've already waited YEARS.
Yeah, we all know. That said, the majority aren't playing Archwing. DE has been pushing updating it. The majority aren't doing conclave. DE is still focusing on pushing it heavily. Scaling back those sections and focusing more on the core systems of the whole game (which would update those systems as well, btw) seems to be the best option. It also is the only option DE has refused to take.
When the devstream has explicitly stated, "We want to reduce the grind," that's the direction the game should take. Period. I don't care about what Johnny over in the Billing department thinks about the game. The simple fact is many vets are tired of grinding and have done it to a point where it just isn't fun. When you have the key people in development acknowledging it is a problem and saying they want to implement less while turning around and implementing even larger grinds, it becomes a bit hypocritical.
Which is the issue. They want to remove our ability to "cheese" without removing the reasons for us doing so. It is no surprise people are upset with the changes and I, for one, am not happy with them.
To address your first point, if I have to suck it up and use the systems that have been put in place, then you should have to suck up the new reworks and nerfs that have been put into place, However, I disagree with this completely as I think we both have the right to complain about what we see as issues.
Now to your second point, As I mentioned before, The forums hardly represent the majority of people, the majority of people quietly lay back and play the game, we here on the forums are the vocal minority, are there a lot of us? Yes, however that still pales in comparison to the total player base. The same applies even to the in game chat. The best way I can illustrate this point is using popular relays such as Luranda. Luranda is a fairly popular relay that generally has a large amount of players on it, however, of the many players that are within Luranda, only a few actually choose to talk socialize etc. The majority of the people simply go about their business and head out when they need to.
Now to your third point of me having "Blind ignorance." I provided the reasons I still have faith in DE, as most of the reworks I have seen have been in a positive light for me personally. As I mentioned before with things such as parkour 2.0, that was a major rework that I particularly liked, and again they have pushed out plenty of smaller but impactful QOL improvements that have made the game better, am I saying that DE is without fault? Of course not, the issues they are only just now starting to address should have been address long ago. So do I have blind faith? That's up to you, but I'm willing to give credit to DE where they deserve it, and Criticize them when needed. "Blind ignorance" would be me saying that DE is perfect in spite of their previous and current flaws.
Now to address Conclave and Archwing. Conclave hardly has an effect on the core PVE game as it is developed by a separate team. Archwing however, is something more of one of DE's Visions for how the game should be, after all, we are "space ninjas," and I feel DE has taken this idea of "space ninjas" to heart and is trying to implement it. I think that, while I personally dislike it and find it boring, DE should be allowed to pursue their after all, if they didn't pursue their ideas, we wouldn't have this game.
However, I do think that DE has plenty of good ideas, but not enough resources to properly execute them, I admire that DE has these ideas, but I still wish they could have more of a singular focus.
Now to your next point, I completely agree that DE should keep their word more often, If they say they want to reduce the grind, they should, simple as that. However DE is currently walking a very fine line, a line of wanting there game to not be a grindfest, while also not wanting their game to be trivialized. As such, any move in either direction can cause a massive shift as this recent update has. And as I've mentioned before, I think DE is on the right track, but they should be more delicate about where they go.
In regards to your final point, "They want to remove our ability to "Cheese" without removing the reasons for us doing so." This is what I was addressing in my original post.
-
22 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:
It's called solo play or forming your own unit. Both are completely viable options and can be done in a way that it prevents your issue without detrimentally impacting the player base as a whole. You are complaining for an inability to use the options you are already provided, I have no sympathy for such a case.
The frames themselves. I'd say simply remove this update entirely and hold it until after the enemies balancing has been done.
A small percentage is happy, sure. The majority doesn't seem to be, as evidenced by the recent uptick in forum activity and the plea we saw directly from DE.
You must be kidding. Enemy scaling has been an issue for over 3 years with no changes. All that's been done has been band-aid fixes, like Nullifiers, which become staples after the problem they were created to fix is long gone. Again, DE has been made aware of and commented on the subject several times with no actual shown results directed at combatting the problem. That's a piss poor track record.
I'd say a bigger problem, and one I've seen since I started playing, is there push to funnel more and more crap into the game while ignoring basic systems that have been in place forever that are due for a rework. DE would rather push out Archwing and Archwing updates than focus the resources spent designing and implementing them on just taking care of the basics. You also have the whole "We don't want more grind" statements that DE has made, then they turn around and implement massive resource grinds on all the new content.
But she is less effective at her niche. You seem to think the two are mutually exclusive when, in fact, they aren't.
The issue with solo, as I've mentioned, previously, is that I actually enjoy playing with other people and I feel this game was made with the intention of playing with other people. However, I would love to form my own unit, however, I've found it hard at least for myself to create lasting bonds with other players, strong enough to always have a select squad of people I can play with. Also, what about players that simply don't have enough time to form these bonds necessary for creating a unit? should they just have to suck it up?
In regards to your second point, I actually like the idea of them recalling it until enemy scaling is fixed, so that they can be released at the same time. However, this would spur on even more conflict on the forums if players that liked the recent changes, suddenly saw these reworks taken away. also, I think that if DE is willing to listen to proposed ideas about these changes, and they act upon these ideas, I have no problem, after all PC is generally the "guinea pig" of Warframe.
Now to your third "A small percentage" do you evidence that I am a small percentage? You've mentioned the recent increase in forum activity, however, the forums are not representative of a majority of people.
Now to your fourth "You must be kidding" (*sarcasm* thanks for taking me seriously and responding in a non-condescending way btw) "Enemy scaling has been an issue for over 3 years with no changes..." As i've mentioned in previously, this is an issue yes, one that has yet to be solved, and yes, I am tired of it also, however, With other previous re-works, such as parkour 2.0 and other smaller changes to the game regarding QOL improvements, I still have trust in DE.
In regards to your fifth point "there push to funnel more and more crap into the game while ignoring basic systems." The reason they push more "Crap" into the game is because it is what keeps players logging back in and gives players something to do. We all remember how impatient people were getting for update 18, a situation like this would be far worse if even more updates were dedicated only towards balancing. (while it would be good in the long term for players, it would not be good for DE in terms of running a company) Also, I would argue that DE creating new weapons/frames/quests does not effect them working on balances. DE is after all, a company made of different people with different specializations and roles, as such, DE can work on various aspects of the game at the same time, So I personally think DE is alright to push more content as it doesn't have a major impact on them also working on balancing.
Now onto the various statements that DE has made regarding reducing grind. As mentioned, DE is a company made of people, people with their own ideas as to how the game should be made and played. As such they often have differing ideas for the game. So while one person says they want less grind in the game, someone else would be able to push towards more grind. So, I think that people sometimes give DE too much credit when they think that DE is a single unified entity with a consistent idea for how the game should be made.
In regards to mag, "she is less effective at her niche. you seem to think the two are mutually exclusive when in fact, they aren't." (Forgive me for assuming, however I'm assuming that when you say "the two" you are referring to her being more usable generally, or being strong at a single niche, correct me if i'm wrong.) However, I think that if she were to be both generally strong, like she is now, and also superior in her niche against the corpus, she would be an even stronger frame with even higher levels of "cheese." Cheese being the thing that DE appears to be trying to get rid of. As such, it wouldn't make sense to make a frame that already has cheese even more cheesy by making here usable elsewhere, the only thing keeping her cheese in check was that she as a frame was only strong against corpus. So I think DE had two options, keep her niche, or make her more usable in more situations and for more people.
-
4 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:
For many people it is too late. The massive nerf bat has already been implemented without any benefits to the player base.
But, it really isn't. The best idea would be to revert to the previous iteration and focus on enemy balance first, as they should have done from the start. As it stands now they would rather force people to suffer through the changes in the hopes it will get better. Show me it getting better and I'd be more willing to submit to the changes but, without such incentive, I will go by track record. Track record shows DE has a done a piss-poor job of addressing the actual core mechanics. I doubt that will change.
You realize "Hopefully update X will fix it" has been the running tag line of this game at this point, right? I started before damage 2.0 and people were saying the exact same thing back then. The problem is nothing has been fixed. It has been band-aided beyond belief, but in terms of an actual fix there has been absolutely no movement towards one. In such a case massively limiting your customer base in the form of nerfs to several popular Warframe options isn't the logical and rational step. It is all stick with no carrot.
For your first point, "it has already been implemented without any benefits to the player base." I think that it has benefited, at the very least, people like me, who hate not being able to do what they want in the game (Kill mobs) because someone with a cheese build wipes them out before we can fire our gun.
Onto your second point, "the best idea would be to revert to the previous iteration." This is just my own failure to understand, but if you could clarify for me, previous iteration of what? Also, I agreed that it would have been preferable to rework enemy scaling before cheesing became as big of an issue as it is now, so agreed. Also the idea that "They would rather fore people to suffer." As I mentioned in my first point, people like me aren't suffering, and with the two options I mentioned in the original post, it was either this group of people hurts, or this other group hurts. No matter what, they did, people would have been hurt, which as mentioned before, is unfortunate that it has escalated to this point. "also track record shows DE has done a piss-poor job of addressing the actual core mechanics." For me at least, DE's track record is fine, (maybe this is because I wasn't really active in the game before other overhauls) I feel that with some recent reworks, mainly parkour 2.0, and other QOL improvements, they have shown they have the capability to make additions and changes very well, however, I think that nerfing/reworking is such a large problem for the community and source of conflict that DE has to tread more carefully than they are now.
And yes, I do realize that "Hopefully Update X will fix it" has been a "Running tag line of this game." However, DE has addressed alot of problems, again a good example parkour2.0, the problem is that it can take them a while to fix what we want them to fix at this moment.
Also, I feel the statement "In such a case, massively limiting your customer base in the form of nerfs to several popular frames." I feel they've actual opened up more options especially with frames like mag. Before the rework she was a "One-trick pony" against the corpus, however, now she has far more usability across all factions, as such it also makes her more accessible and useful to all.
-
33 minutes ago, Zari2015 said:
:O
Cheese hero wanna be, you don't know what you want from this game...
Just asking from curiosity what frames do you play? because only 5-6 frames are out of cheese area and others are not scaling at all with higher level enemies...
Now if you think the colored parts from your quotes are your main referral ideas please resume and don't deny the fact i asked you a simple question from 2 problems that the game has now.
"- You have to give up to frames until they become useless.
- Or giving up at enemies creating the massive "cheese" effect.
What you will chose to have fewer consequences knowing some people paid for your game and they become your consumer.?"
Hehe "cheese hero" I like that
Anyways, what I want from this game is a balanced experience that allows players to feel like gods in lower level tilesets, and also have players face real challenges, not just bullet spongers.
The two frames I've been playing lately are my aforementioned mobility Zephyr and some Ivara here and there.
In regards to your question, I felt I answered that in my first response, what I would chose is something similar to what DE is currently, doing. Albeit more refined.
Also in one of your lines you mentioned "You have to give up frames until they become useless." I don't think they would become useless, just balanced, I think that the recent mag rework is a good example, while she can't crush corpus like she used to, she has more playability in more areas, I personally think the recent changes made her more playable overall.
-
50 minutes ago, magusat999 said:
I don't disagree with you in spirit, but my issue is this isn't just a recent thing. DE has been running the game for 4 years now - so there was plenty of time time hit up the "Core mechanics". Even if we consider that this is not the same engine as those years ago - DE should have gotten the kinks out before deploying it. Its like if you have people inside a burning house, so you run in and throw some water on the people, and then leave them in the burning house. You just stopped them from burning for that moment - but you haven't fixed the core problem - and so they end up burning anyway.
I think that over the course of the 4 years DE has been here, they've been overhauling a lot of "Core mechanics," the most prominent one. at least for me, was parkour 2.0. I think they are addressing a lot of core mechanics, it's just that they aren't the ones we want right now, but again, I have some hope for U19 to address these large issues.
38 minutes ago, (PS4)horridhal said:Had they reworked the core game prior to reworking the frames, they could have built the frame reworks around the new core game. While you are correct that, for a time following such a rework, many frames would be incredibly powerful, it really isn't any different than it was.
What they've done is a poor excuse for planning. They removed a player's ability to "cheese" while leaving in the things that made such "cheese" a necessity. It's an unfortunate and massive mistake on DE's part. They should have balanced the enemies first, and I think you finally see they are realizing just how big of an error they made. The current plea from Rebecca on the forums is basically just that, a plea asking players to wait and they will eventually balance the core game.
The thing is, though, even with such a promise, vets are tired of waiting. At least I know I and many others I play with are. We have been promised a look at scaling over and over with nothing ever actually materializing on that front and, instead, are now given a poop-sandwich and being asked to enjoy it for the moment while something better is made.
I think that the problem is that "it really isn't any different than it was." I feel that at least for myself, grind isn't as much of a problem as not being able to do what I think is fun in this game (kiling enemies) because someone else has cheesed them to death for me. There is however, always the option of solo, however, I enjoy the Co-op experience provided by the game, as such it would be a shame to miss out on that by playing only solo if I wanted to avoid Cheese.
I also agree that what they are currently doing is mostly in part to poor planning, however, I think they are trying the make the best of what they have now. Preferably, enemy scaling would've been addressed long ago. However, with the current situation and for the reasons I have mentioned, I think the general idea of what DE is currently doing is the best plan, although as I've mentioned I think they were too forceful with it.
And to address your last point, I think we are all tired of waiting, but hopefully U19 will bring some much needed changes.
49 minutes ago, Praxxor said:first of all: "homing rockets" "AOE" and "Toxic Auras" are what you will be dealing with in Void Survival missions in general, and you have at least one of those per each faction, (Grineer have AOE and rockets, Corpus have a LOT of AOE, Infested have AOE and Toxic Auras) and any of those can kill a non-tank warframe if you are unlucky enough to get hit, and we are not talking about several hits here, you will die in one tick of damage, and mobility can't save you forever, you will be facepunched at one point or another.
Now, why i used T3 Survival as an example, that's because you get all types of damage there at once, I only mentioned it as just one relatively high-level mission, it's not even considered close to end-game, using T2 is just pointless because of how easy it is, and T4 makes you receive +300% damage, i don't really want to use a place with even more artificial difficulty increments as an example, that's why i stopped at T3, it's just an example, there are way harder missions than that, and obviously easier, it's just a middle ground IMO.
But let's take any other high-level mission, let's say it starts at level 20 and scales like any other mission, faction doesn't really matter, you get drops from it that you need, and the longer you stay the better, now, that's the sort of missions people used the "cheese" builds, not just because they wanted just the easy way out, sometimes there was just no way around it.
I have not seen any of the nerfed abilities abused outside of those sorts of missions, except for raids, and raids are a completely different matter, i'd complain about that too, but you are obviously fed up with me already.
So what's the use of the nerfs coming before mechanic reworks if the reason of ability abuse is still in-game? And you can't get around it, you can't go solo forever (especially in defense/interception), and finding a good professional team is hard, so people used the easy builds to save time and nerves. But when DE decided to change something, they took care of the "product" first. Now, people will only find new setups, then those will get nerfed, the cycle will continue until something is done about mechanics, DE is wasting their own time by going backwards from the product of the problem, you need to eliminate the root first.
And about invisibility, if you want to use that, you are either tied to one of 3 warframes, or melee/naramon, that means that you can't do certain things with a non-stealth warframe and a shotgun for example (and it should be logically doable). And please don't mention Huras' and Shade's invisiblity, those abilities are worthless in active combat, unless you are spamming abilities, and we are against that right?
Regarding your first point, specifically the last statement "you will be face-punched at one point or another." that is entirely true, as it applies to all frames, eventually the odds you face will overwhelm you, it's just up to you to get out of there before that time comes. There is no magic solution that will let you go on forever.
In your original posts you seemed to be using T3 survival not as an example, but as a challenge that must be overcome in order to prove that a frame can "survive." However, if T3 survival was not meant to be used as the definition of survive, than I apologize for my misunderstanding. However, if T3 survival is but one example, then that means that there are more than one way to prove that a frame can "survive" as such, I think that other missions such as the aforementioned T2, T4, etc, can act as testimony to the survivability of any frame.
To address your third statement, about endless missions, I think this is where changes such as enemy scaling are coming in, hopefully with U19, however, as stated for the reasons mentioned in my original post, I think DE made the right decision of reworking before enemy scaling is changed.
In regards to the statement "I have not seen any of the nerfed abilities abused outside of those sorts of missions." I cant really refute this point as it all comes down to what we see as an individual.
I think that your fourth statement can be addressed in a way similar to your third. it sucks yes, and while DE has the right idea, they could've gone about it in a better, more subtle fashion. But hopefully this cycle of nerfs (I consider them decent reworks to be honest) will end soon.
And about invisibility, invisibility is but one means towards the goal of surviving in any given mission. And like I feel every aspect of the game should, it has it's own drawbacks as well as advantages.
-
14 minutes ago, Praxxor said:
Well, I WAS talking about surviving without CC and damage resistance, lasting in T3 survival till 60 minutes is exactly what i'd call survival, and you can trust my word that you can't survive that with mobility only
Well, there's one thing that can let you survive through that stuff without CC and high resistance - invisibility, but judging the recent changes I can almost guarantee that most sources of invisibility (especially Naramon) are gonna get nerfed, or "reworked"
In your original post, you simply stated "surviving" you never mentioned where nor did you ever mention for how long. You simply stated "Survive"
1 hour ago, Praxxor said:The very reason that those builds were used and abused is the ridiculous scaling of enemies (especially grineer), at some point you just can't survive without extreme CC and damage resistance, but apparently you can't have either, so are we not meant to go to that point in endless missions at all?
And so I replied using the basic definition of survive "Continue to live or exist, especially in spite of danger or hardship. I then replied using this definition, with both criteria in the definition met, "continue to live" Check. "In spite of danger" Check (Danger being the fact that all enemies have the potential to kill you)
So I thereby proved my point that surviving is possible without neither CC nor damage resistance. However, afterwords you added on the additional criteria of surviving against "homing rockets" "AOE" and "Toxic Auras." This here is already going back on your original argument and changing your original undefined definition of "Survival." just by doing this you already committed the fallacy of the moving goalpost. However, I was fine to answer to this as it was within the definition that we have stated that being the danger presented by all enemies having the potential to kill you.
However, even after I responded and adequately answered the issue now twice, you again added onto the basic definition of what it means to survive by adding on the subjective idea that only "T3 survival till 60 minutes," is surviving. The first time you committed the fallacy was no major issue as you could still say that it is within the definition of "Survive," However you have now changed the definition of survive by adding on a specific location and time requirement, whereas the actual objective definition for survive states neither of these criteria. so now you again have committed the same fallacy I have already pointed out. And even then I stated why I myself, as an individual cannot do it due to my own personal lack of the skills required to make it possible. however, now you state "you can trust my word that you can't survive with that mobility only." First off, can you prove without a shadow of a doubt that it is in fact impossible to "Survive" using your twisted definition of a "T3 Survival till 60 minutes?" While I may not be able to do it, there are many other players who could have the skills to do such a feat.
Now I'm going temporarily to try and accept your Idea of what survival is. "lasting in a T3 survival till 60 minutes is exactly what i'd call survival." In your new and twice altered definition, you only state "T3 Survival till 60 minutes." So what about the rest of the game, what about T2, survival? T4? what about those survival mission alerts? what about the rest of the game? are you simply not surviving in those even though they meet all the requirements stated in the actual, objective, definition of survive? I have already objectively answered and fulfilled the requirements of what it is to survive as opposed to using your subjective definition. Now let me ask, How much more must I answer to these subjective ideas when only objective fact should stand as the base for an argument? how far are you going to twist the definition of survive? how far are you going to take this?
(Also PS, you kinda stated a way to survive without using CC or damage resistance in your very own argument, thereby, you proved your own point wrong. Just because you think that there is a possibility in the future that something might be changed is not a reason to completely remove that thing from the argument)
-
4 minutes ago, Zari2015 said:
True but let me explain something...
- You have to give up to frames until they become useless.
- Or giving up at enemies creating the massive "cheese" effect.
Now i'm asking you: What decision you will take that have fewer consequences knowing some people paid for your game and they become your consumer.
My decision creating massive "cheese" thanking everyone for 2 or 3 weeks until is create proper nerfs and frames scaling.
So, considering that I myself and a consumer and have donated towards the game, allow me to give you my answer, I would choose to follow through with what they are currently doing (albeit, a little more subtle)
The reason I say that is because your idea of "thanking everyone for two - three weeks" simply doesnt apply to "everyone" it gives thanks only to those who use cheese and can actually be a negative for anyone else.
To further elaborate on this point, allow me to state the reason I play, to have fun by killing enemies. However, if the "cheese was more potant" I would either have to adopt the new meta (thereby removing other options of gameplay) or let the players who cheese, do all the killing for me (thereby removing the reason I play) therefore, your idea only benefit's people who cheese and has a negative impact towards those who aren't using cheese.
-
12 minutes ago, Praxxor said:
I really doubt that you will be able to survive a T3 survival at least till 60 minutes with just that, sorry i can't trust what you say until you provide proof, if you do, i'll shut up
Oh and i said practically CC, because it practically has the same effect in the end
Well hmm, I could've sworn we were talking about dodging rockets and avoiding AOE, not a t3 survival, do I sense a fallacy of the "moving goal post?" :) But in all seriousness, I can't do a T3 60 minute survival, not because the zephyr build sucks, but more so because I do. but, in regards to your original criteria of rockets, AOE, and toxic auras, my zephyr build can handle all of this just fine, it's also my goto frame for any other high level missions (sorties and such) I personally believe the frame is capable of handling all content if played properly, but as I mentioned, I just don't have the skills.
Also, I think that I disagree still about turbulence being CC, personally, I believe CC should benefit the team as a whole instead of an individual player. As such I think that turbulence is only a form of negating damage.
-
5 minutes ago, Praxxor said:
I'm sorry, but how exactly does mobility save you from homing bombard rockets, AOE attacks and toxic auras? Unless you are using Turbulence, which is both damage mitigation and does practically the same as CC
Homing rockets: with zephyr's fully nodded speed, it is surprisingly easy to run behind cover before rockets make contact.
AOE: simply stay in the air, with mods for both bullet time, combined with zephyr reduced gravity, you can stay in the air quite a while without even using her abilities.
Toxic auras: again, stay in the air or stay at a range.
The only time I use turbulence is for a melee build, I agree that turbulence is damage mitigation, but I dont see how it's CC.
Anyways, back to my underlying point, you don't need to have damage resistance nor CC in order to survive. I was merely stating my zephyr build as an example.
-
16 minutes ago, Repligon said:
I think, these two + energy system actually have to be changes simultaneously. They depend on each other and when you treat only one at a time, another two break.
Look at the last "rebalances". If the rest of the warframes receive the same treatment I can't imagine how people will do raids and sorties. Current endgame content seem to be built around metagame of that time. Like that button game in LoR. How do players would do all this "stay in one place or you will all die" nonsense against CC-galore lvl100 eneimes if all mapwide CC, invincibility and perma-invisibility is to be taken away?
I can clearly see DE logic, but it seems like they are wandering in the dark. I liked how Digital Extremes tended to go into extremes. If it's damage reduction - it's invinibility; if it's CC - it's decapacitates the wole map; etc. It is a thing that makes Warframe stand out for me. Yes they were cheap and spammable, but dyam fix energy system, make powers worth something instead of gimping them till they match the cost. With current agenda warframes will eventually turn into super-space-spandex-suits with fancy but mediocre powers. Like what they did in archwing
Agreed, I wish they could be able to do both at once, however, i feel that would create a period of time that's lacking in New content, and because New content keeps many players returning, it could have a large impact if those players were to wait even longer while DE are making these large changes before adding new content like frames, weapons, and quests.
The rest of your arguement (correct me if I'm wrong) seems to only be referring to the current state of the game, whereas I'm trying to address DE's overarching plan. So as I've said before, it's not optimal, but it's the best DE can do.
-
The only thing I can really mention is to hold on till u19, than we'll see if DE is truly trying to make the game better.
-
13 minutes ago, Praxxor said:
The very reason that those builds were used and abused is the ridiculous scaling of enemies (especially grineer), at some point you just can't survive without extreme CC and damage resistance, but apparently you can't have either, so are we not meant to go to that point in endless missions at all?
To address your opening statement that "the very reason those builds were used and abused is the ridiculous scaling of enemies," as I mentioned in a comment on another thread, there will always be people in every aspect of life who always push for the most they possibly can, the best, and most relevant example being the speed running community, a community based of cheesing in games that don't require it. As such I think that no matter how balanced games are, people will still try to cheese because it can be fun.
Now to address what came after your first sentence, I hardly think that CC and resistance are "necessary" to survive in endless missions. I say this from personal experience because my endgame build is a zephyr that only has mobility mods on it. I don't think that either CC or resistance are "necessary" only optimal.
Also, the original post post is talking about the overall course of action DE is talking while you only refer to the present(correct me if I'm wrong). And as I mentioned in my original post, it isn't perfect, but, it's the best of two bad situations.
-
Agreed!
-
Just now, notlamprey said:
While I don't really disagree, I think DE absolutely could have used a lighter touch with these most recent changes. Many of the 'reworkings' were too aggressive, or just poorly planned.
A lot of the outcry could have been avoided, and DE ultimately wound up making more work for themselves.
I agree that DE could have done this less aggressively, however I think that it comes down to DE's capability as a whole. While DE certainly has it's strongsuits, I feel that properly balancing the game at the right time Is not one of them.
In regards to reducing outcry, I think what they did was the best option. If core game mechanics were altered before frame balancing, there would also be an outcry, not against the mechanical changes, but about how potent the cheese could become. Then afterwords, they would receive another outcry if they balanced frames.
Either way there would have been outcries no doubt, but I feel that DE has chosen the best course of actions, even if their actions are a little extreme, but hey, it is Digital Extremes afterall.
-
Hello! Recently I've been looking around on the forums because of the recent update that reworked frames. While I'm not going to address every point that has been brought up, I would like to address one. "DE should rework core mechanics, Such as enemy scaling before balancing frames."
The statement mentioned above is a very good point that does make sense, however, I think there is more to look at.
I believe the devs at DE had two options, rework core mechanics before frame, or frames before mechanics. While the first most definitely sounds better, I don't believe it is better in the long term.
The reason I say this is that I believe if core mechanics were overhauled before the frames were, there would be a period of time where "cheese" reigns supreme. In this period it is likely other frames would be more viable, however cheese would be far more powerful.
I think that if this were to be the case, many more aspects of the game would be trivialized. As such I think the devs had two options, either choose to create a period of time where the game can easily be trivialized, or a period of time where the game becomes a grindfest.
Either option is clearly not optimal, however I believe DE "chose" the second option as it is the best from a company standpoint. If, "the cheese became more potent" players could have the potential to blow through content faster than ever before. When keeping players online is the best way for games like these to survive, it's best for the game's creators to try to prolong play time by temporarily increasing the grind.
Anyways, sorry about the huge wall of text. Also, please feel free to add onto/refute anything mentioned above.
-
26 minutes ago, TheTundraTerror said:
Do you honestly think DE puts any forethought into their actions? Can you say that with a straight face? The company that wants to reduce grind but gives each of Booban's parts a 5% chance to drop in Void.
Let's get something straight: if players didn't have to cheese, they wouldn't find ways to cheese. If enemies didn't scale out of control, people wouldn't need find ways to cheese missions. But by removing the "cheese" (a.k.a. strategies!) players have devised and replacing it with nothing, DE is just irritating players.Hello, I just wanted to try to address your two points stated here. Firstly being "do you think DE puts any forethought into their actions?" Simply put, yes. I feel that it is impossible to make any change/addition to a game without first putting thought to it, especially when changing games like this require both time and resources to change.
However, I do realize and agree that sometimes DE can be hypocritical, especially with the idea of "reducing the grind." However, DE is a company made of people, people who all have their own ideas of how the game should be made and played. As such, often times, these people have differing ideals for the game, sometimes these different ideals for the game make their way into the actual game and appear as hypocritical. That being said, I do wish that DE would keep there word more often.
Now onto the second point "if players didn't have to cheese, they wouldn't find ways to cheese." I disagree with this statement as I think that there are many people in all aspects of life who always try to push for the most they possibly can. The best, and most relevant comparison being the speedrunning community, a community based off of "cheesing" in games that don't require it. As such, I think that no matter the game, and no matter the situation, people will cheese because it can be fun.
I also don't mean to say that cheesing for fun is bad as I myself like to have some cheese every now and again.
I also agree that DE should try to address core problems, especially in areas regarding grind and enemy scaling. However, these are, as mentioned, core to the game, as such they require large amounts of work to change. I personally believe these series of reworks are a sort of prelude to what is possibly coming in update 19. Update 19, from what I've seen and heard is hopefully going to be addressing at least some of these core issues.
Anyways, just wanted to throw my opinion out here for everyone to read, If you want to add on or refute anything please feel free to reply.
-
So I decided to make my ember into a roller
(I also messed up my first one by using the simulacrum now it's just in the spoiler)
So I decided to make my ember into a roller
-
1 hour ago, TennoPain said:
Did that like 1000 times already still not good enough (trust me nobody can work around this feeling)
Way too many ppl leaving becouse of this
In my personal experience 40+ of my friends left just because they dont have anything to do
Huh, would ya look at that, it's almost like when players complete a game, they get bored and move on to play other games, who could've guessed.
-
Grate prime and chocoboat prime
-
In regards to your comment about the grind in the game, I'll agree, there is ALOT of grind. however, I think that a lot of people, myself included, can deal with the grind because at the heart of it, we enjoy some aspect of the game play behind the grind. Whether it's the feel of individual weapons and their mechanics, or using the parkour system to blitz through the map, there is something you should try to find that you can enjoy while farming.
However, sometimes the fun can be lost by the redundancy and ease of farming, so try something new. I saw recently in another post of yours that you haven't been on for about a year, right? If that's the case, you have plenty of stuff to try out while farming for other things.
However, all of this really just depends on whether or not you enjoy some mechanics of the game. If you don't find yourself enjoying the actual gameplay itself, then yea, the grind isn't worth it.
In regards to the endless enemy scaling, I agree, it sucks. However, I think that DE is currently trying something new for enemies that more revolves around better AI and units that blend well with one another, as shown in the current event 'Rathuum.'
Also, I don't really think that the foundry waiting times are all that bad, maybe it's just because I never really saw the need for forma. (and still don't) I'd say the worst thing is the time it takes to build frames, but beyond that I dont have an issue.
To adress the time limited exclusives, it seems that everything (besides Excalibur prime) is eligible for appearing again in some form or fashion and some items already have, especially with the new sortie reward system. Also, I think that DE made a step in the right direction when they made all deluxe skins permanent on the market, as that always seemed to be the most painful thing to miss.
However, despite everything I said above, I think, that at the end of the day, it comes down to one thing, do you enjoy the game's mechanics enough to keep playing? A game is meant for it's players to have fun. If you aren't having fun with the games core mechanics and are just playing in hopes that the one reward you are grinding for will make it all worth it, I think you have it wrong.
-
I agree they should throw a cinematic after the quest, but I think they should probably remake it so it fits with the environment a little bit better while also looking better.
In your opinion what is the "Apparent" hardest thing to do in Warframe?
in General Discussion
Posted
Getting 100% mastery on pc