Hamsterius
-
Posts
19 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Hamsterius
-
-
27 minutes ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:
You'd be surprised but a lot of people thought they lost the same 10% every tick instead of it changing based on the new number after each tick. You had people claiming that after the 20% loss from no infected and then 3 ticks later you lost 50% of your damage.
And nah when I did my math (which is what you did) I didn't account for mods. Because mods effect how often a tick happens and how much you lose per tick.
I find it odd people thought that. I personally noticed right on my first Simulacrum test with Saryn 3.5 that the decay rate changes as the damage counter lowers.
-
31 minutes ago, Rankii said:
Instead of asking "How can we change this frame that clearly works and is used?" they should be asking "How do we improve these frames we don't see used?"
When was the last time anyone saw a vauban or wukong? What about poor, poor Nyx?
I'd agree normally, but I really don't want DE to hit-and-run Saryn and now run off to some other frame before they finish making this one non-Onslaught viable.
Honestly they should just fully revert Spores and Miasma, leave in only the Molt+Lash changes, and then they really should move on to some frame that was critically injured BEFORE they went after them. -
4 hours ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:
You do know that the 10% decay after the 20% chunk is 10% of the current number and not your max right? that means every time you lose damage from decay it's 10% of that new number. (this is ofc without mods where you can effect the decay rate and how much you lose per decay tick.) I did the math in a different thread and you really don't lose that much damage.
1000*0.8=800 (start)
800*0.9=720(first tick)
720*0.9=648(second tick)
How else would you do the math? Start at 1000, two seconds of decay plus that instant one is 650~, just like what i said.
Did you assume duration mods are being used? -
35 minutes ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:
but both corpus and infested have units weak to corrosive. So it's still useful. I don't think spores are meant to have a 100% up time. Or that would kind of defeat the purpose of the decay mechanic that practically every person I saw was asking for.
I meant they're unaffected by corrosive procs, not damage. There are some very rare corpus units that have armor, but unless you have a weird glitch that floods the map with oxium ospreys and bursa's I wouldn't place them in the same group as corrupted, nevermind grineer. As for infested, only infested I could find with armor is the Juggernaut.
Decay mechanic was asked in the age of 3.0 when damage ramped up quickly, and either way I don't think most people imagined the current state where a weaker than before number based increase has to somehow recover from a percentage drain. I mean, let's say you have 1k damage built, you decay for 2 seconds, you're now at about 650. At 200% power strength, it'll now take you eight seconds to recover assuming you're maintaining 10+ infected at all times. 8 seconds of work to recover from 2 seconds of decay, not what people imagined I assume.19 minutes ago, Kaerd said:I already made a big post in the spore feedback thread (its in page 7 for anyone that cares to read it) where I addressed this contradiction and came to the conclusion that spores have only two options:
A) Spores deal damage, but are not allowed to easily spread, and must be micromanaged to avoid AFK play.
B) Spores deal very little damage but can propagate like before, leaving the damage dealing to the player. This avoids AFK play by making the players do the killing themselves, since spores would never really kill anything except for the lowest levels of enemies after a lengthy period of time.
I prefer option B, since that lets me PLAY Saryn, instead of babysitting spores and that infernal counter. Read my post if you'd like and leave some feedback.
B does sounds better. Was a big fan of original Saryn 2.0 spores where all spores did was assist you with viral and toxin, but were super-reliable and with a good gas melee you'd see some pretty nice results on all factions. I read your comment in the spores feedback thread just now, the only feedback I can give is that if you haven't opened your own post yet open one so people can see it easier and know about it because I like 99% of what you said there. Viral debuff spores being back, Miasma working like Ravenous, and it seems to fix what I complained about in this post. Don't just let your post disappear in that thread mate.
-
3 minutes ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:
Seems like a player made issue than an actual one.
Spores smother themselves so you can't have the issue of what the spores did before. Which was AFK kill and spread. It also gives allies the chance to actually participate instead of watching your ability kill everything.
Also ignoring the other benefits of spores and only focus on "spore killing" makes it easy to make your point. The strip is helpful. And while they're corrosive procced but still have armor you do a lot more damage due to how damaging an enemy with their weakness works with the interaction of armor. Essentially you can have your spores basically do no damage and run up with a strong weapon and do tons of damage while they're corrosive procced.
This "contradiction" is from reading between the lines a bit too much looking for something. It's more of a "hey this is kinda funny" and less of a "hey this is an actual design flaw."
I ignored the armor strip precisely because of that. If you're in the spore game for the strip, then as you stated the damage of the ability is pretty irrelevant. However, about 62% of the game's factions,(Infested, Corpus and some corrupted) don't have armor. If you answer "You're not supposed to use her against any of those(Corpus/Infested/Corrupted Corpus/Infested)" than yes, I'd agree spores are perfectly fine. If you answer "Who cares about spores, I just use her for *insert any other ability*" than again, for your needs spores are perfectly fine. If you answer "I just use spores to power up Condition Overload", than again, spores are fine for you as they are. However if you even partially disagree with those statements in quotations, if you see spores as anything other than free corrosive procs and still intend to use them, than the issue of the non-corrosive proc aspects of spores has to be dealt with.
Personally, my design philosophy might be considered shallow, but I share the basic thought that any thing A that is supposed to accomplish goal X should reward the player in direct proportion to the player's ability to successfully use them for that purpose. So if you believe spores are a damage tool more than they are a built in Corrosive Projection(/Condition Overload amplifier / don't use them / similar) then it follows in my opinion that spores are actually punished for fulfilling their purpose successfully, which is bad, and as I mentioned I don't believe that the removal of spread on death is the cause so I'm definitely not advocating to just slap it back on and be done with it.
Spores encouraged AFK in 3.0 in my opinion mainly because of the very problem of spore-smothering. Back in 3.0 you only had one spore, and intervening with it could mean you'd cut it's run short yourself by either outright wiping everyone, or by killing in such a way that enemies are split and the spores are locked in a corner doomed to run out since there's nobody close enough for them to spread to when those enemies die. Either way that'll reset your spores, so lazy or not lazy, you'd want to stay away from infected. Now you're forced to interact with them, even though the issue of accelerating enemy deaths has not been solved. (Considering the growth rate is in numbers while decay is in percents, 90% of the time you'd lose faster than gaining making wiping out all infected still be a problem, though the spore-locking problem has been solved by recasts somewhat)
As for giving allies the chance to kill things too, I fully agree with the sentiment, I just think that it could have been handled in a better way that wouldn't have aggravated a problem that already existed in 3.0 -
Maybe if Miasma's energy cost is lowered by 90%, otherwise absolutely no.
-
4 minutes ago, Souldend78 said:
In my case my only concern is that spores can be too powerful to maintain with under lvl40 enemies, which is most of the starchart. Which should be the premise on any threads about spores, since anything over lvl 50, should not be the way to determine changes to abilities.
Sounds like we at least agree the patient is sick, despite disagreeing on the diagnosis. I can live with that. As long as someone vocal out there knows how to fix her, I don't mind if it ain't me.
-
25 minutes ago, Souldend78 said:
And yes, Spores nature has Always been contradicting (going by that premise, all frames abilities that requires targets - friend or foe are contradicting), you always had the need to kept enemies alive in order to spread....or have you never tried spreading on a empty room? Even before 3.5?
The problem isn't keeping them alive to spread, it's keeping them alive in order for them to be able to kill. Other frame abilities don't do that. You confuse needing living targets to have someone to kill with needing targets to survive an ability designed to kill them for the ability to be able to kill them.
Saryn 2.0 spores didn't do that. Even if everyone died, the next time you cast spores you'd still have the full power of the ability, which were HP halving and toxin carrying.
-
And also to a certain extent, with Saryn 3.0
Spores, there's two ways to look at them. Some just see them as a free Corrosive Projection, an armor stripping tool. Some, see them as a tool for actual damage dealing.
If you're the former, this post isn't for you. Recasts are back, and if you're not here for the killing power of spores, you could sidestep this issue by just spammingly recasting. The procs will proc even if the damage never goes above 50. The issue for you is probably losing the 2 energy on pop, rather than what I'm about to talk about.
If you're in the latter camp of people who cast spores with intent to deal damage,(rather than just as a built-in CP) then chances are you already encountered this issue yourself.
Premise 1 - The purpose of spores is to deal damage. (This is how we just defined them)
Premise 2 - The purpose of dealing damage to enemies is to kill them.
From P1 and P2 follows Conclusion 1 - The purpose of spores is to kill.
Premise 3 - If spores kill a target, spores don't spread.
Premise 4 - If spores don't spread, they either don't build up more damage, lose damage to decay or lose damage to ability recast.
From P3 and P4 follows Conclusion 2 - In order for spores to be able to deal damage, they must not kill their targets themselves.
From Conclusion 1 and Conclusion 2 follows the following contradiction -
C1 - Spores build damage in order to kill.
C2 - In order to build damage, they must NOT kill.
So in order to kill, spores must not kill.
What?... I don't think you need to be a genius to realize that Spores, as it is designed, is an ability that shoots itself in the leg.
Premise 3 might trick you into thinking this can be solved just be reintroducing spread on kill, but this is just a band-aid for the real problem. It'll help spread to existing enemies, but the real issue?
The real issue is that unless you never leave Onslaught, you're probably fighting the spawns. Saryn 3.0 had spread-on-kill but still struggled outside onslaught because like I showed, you need living enemies to grow stronger, with or without spread on kill, and it's the contradiction of needing enemies not to die in order to have enemies die that's behind this problem.
Imagine if Nidus lost mutation stacks every time he actually dealt a finishing blow with his first or forth abilities. That's basically Saryn right now.
Now honestly? I don't know what's the best way to solve this. I think the problem is deep rooted in the very mechanic of the new spores, and that playing with numbers, spread conditions and stuff like that won't really fix the problem. I always enjoyed debuff Saryn, so if I were to redesign spores I'd probably make them not even deal damage and instead just give blood rush and body count powers to all weapons, or something of that nature. They count up when on targets, you have a 12 seconds grace period to reapply them on things if all hosts die, and based on how much they counted up everything else you do, your guns, melee, miasma, will do more damage.
Probably a bad idea in practice, but it seems like a possible way to accomplish all three goals - 1) Not having to fight your own ability for kill rights. 2) Spores being an escalating damage tool. 3) Spores not encouraging passive play and requiring actual interaction with enemies.
I also heard it suggested somewhere that spores should be similar to Oberon's first ability in the sense that they'd just deal a percentage of the target's health. Also seems like a good solution, just that I don't know what percentage would actually be appropriate. -
2 hours ago, (PS4)WINDMILEYNO said:
Like playing plague inc....instead of it just ramping up damage until everything dies(iv always wanted to make playing saryn feel like playing plague inc...).
Still feels like Plague Inc, just that it's the bio-weapon scenario. You know, the one where the ramping up of lethality is used precisely as a handicap to get you to kill all the infected before the disease can actually spread resetting the run.
Really does sound familiar, no? -
7 hours ago, ITAcataclysm said:
-This still don't encourages enough to go and kill infected enemys for the same reason of Saryn 3.0 (the cap of the 10 infected enemys making the damage scale is a nice idea but it does not solve the problem completly)
Really, they wanted to increase spore interaction by removing spread-on-death, but went and reduced the reward from actually infecting many enemies by capping scaling to 10 enemies. It's like they only want to increase interaction through the punishment of damage loss, but never through the reward of damage gain. Lots of sticks, zero carrots.
-
37 minutes ago, AdunSaveMe said:
This isn't small though. This is a huge impact on the enjoyability of her kit. It's like this change was made just by focusing on numbers, without paying attention to what's actually fun, because this isn't fun at all. I would have preferred a damage nerf or something.
I meant small as in tricks players into thinking "We can salvage this" for long enough to prevent a Viver-style outrage.
I wouldn't have prefered a damage nerf, I would have prefered that they just figure out the obvious that an ability that is supposed to be used to kill shouldn't make you scared that you're killing too much nor should it just be rendered incapable of killing. When spores become strong enough that enemies can't last more than a second, I should be opening a champagne, not shedding tears.
Seriously, unless all you ever fight are grineer, that's literally all they're supposed to do now. Make things die. I should be HAPPY when things die to them, but instead I'm just worried that I'll have to regrow the damage back to passable levels again.
2 minutes ago, Edzhang said:i understand the intention so we cant get like 50k damage easily, but please tune down the decay a little bit..
New spores is a raw damage ability. Getting high damage numbers with it is pretty much it's entire purpose in life now. Low ticks that make you think "Why bother wasting the energy, I'll just shoot that corpus crewman manually" are not what you want.
Notice that I said CORPUS CREWMAN. Because when 2.5 out of 4 factions in the game don't even have armor, I don't think corrosive procs should even be part of this conversation. -
1 hour ago, AdunSaveMe said:
Without it, she feels extremely clunky to play and it's a lot harder to enjoy.
Considering Onslaught, who knows? Maybe that was their goal all along.
Not a hard nerf that'll make people scream Viver, something small and grating to make players gradually drop and forget her. -
53 minutes ago, leirynot said:
The huge problem with Saryn is that she discourage quickly killing enemies because you want to keep some alive to spread spore.
Pretty much. I'll be fully blunt, and I hope somebody from DE actually reads this and takes it to heart -
Any mechanic that is supposed to be primarily used to kill enemies that punishes players for killing too quickly is horribly designed. It's like a racing car that punctures it's own tires if you overtake too much. It makes no sense.
Old spores, the viral ones that spread toxin, you could claim that they're mainly debuff tools. The damage came from toxin procs spreading to enemies that had 50% of their HP nuked by viral prior.
Current spores though, half of the game's factions are armorless, so in my opinion the corrosive proc can, and should, be disregarded when assessing how good the ability is.
And like I said... Without taking the proc into consideration, we have an ability who's only purpose is to deal damage with intent to kill that punishes you for killing too fast.
I dunno, do some thing where each dead enemy jumps up the damage counter by some absurd amount large enough to actually matter, or bring back spread on death and make it so dead enemies spread harder regardless of what killed them and spread-on-pop is weaker so that the best killers spread the harder. It'll be a hard takeoff, but at least we won't regret it when we fly, you know?
Just do something to solve this counterproductive ability. -
Forgive me for the toxic sarcasm, but what you need to understand, which you may not have figured out despite you making that game mode,
is that Elite Onslaught and Onslaught as a whole are not a microcosm of Warframe. They're almost a separate reality.
Faster, denser spawns, as well as smaller maps some of which are pretty much just one room, is not the environment most Warframe content happens in.
ESO makes Saryn SEEM broken because when you have 100000 enemies inside something the size of a tuna can, the spores can spread very quickly on one hand, while the respawn rate being massively faster than in other game modes lets the damage build up quickly no matter how fast hosts die. (Maybe, I'd admit, the spawns just seem faster because in normal missions they're more spread out, but that pretty much changes nothing) Even when not built completely for range, in ESO a single spore can last forever even without player intervention.
In normal missions however, with enemies being spread out way more and spawns being significantly slower, Saryn spores find it very easy to wipe out all hosts essentially resetting the damage, assuming of course you're just sitting there looking at them. If you join the fun by shooting or stabbing enemies yourself, you'll often just aggravate the situation killing your hosts even faster and not even letting the spores build up damage.
Point is, unless you'll also buff all mission spawns to be like 20 times bigger to match the mob density of ESO, you'll never see Saryn perform in them nearly as well as she does in Onslaught. Nerfing her because of Onslaught means murdering her in every other game mode.
This sentiment can pretty much extend to anything else you wanted or want to nerf or buff because of Onslaught. Onslaught is just not the average Warframe environment, so it does not reflect the larger game anywhere near the extent you'd need to justify nerfing something because of their Onslaught performance. -
I'd consider it a massive buff list if not for the damage changes, which are enough to make me consider this an overall omni-nerf. Corrosive is vastly inferior to Viral. It's weaker if not outright useless against corpus and infested, and even against grineer slashing their HP by half may possibly be better than armor stripping.(I'm not sure between their health and armor which one scales harder with their levels) But even if it's not, we have four factions in the game.(sentients not counting) We move from an element that's useful against at least three of them, to an element that's only useful against two of them, maybe. Add in the fact that Corrosive Projection is a thing, and the value of corrosive goes even further into the dirt. If the entire idea is to make her 4 seem more useful or something, it's extremely misguided. You want her 4 to be used more, make it better. Don't make us be forced to use it to replace something we lost. (Which some would argue is what happened with the previous rework, but I'd say free viral procs are better than just a plain nuke. They are also better than free corrosive procs.)
Now if the idea really is to nerf her because you consider viraling half the map too OP, that's a different thing. Some would argue that it is too broken, maybe it is, maybe it isn't. I won't argue whether she should be nerfed, I'll just say that in my opinion that's what she'll be getting from you so if you're not trying to nerf her, don't touch the damage type. Just keep spores viral. You don't have to do anything, quite the opposite, you have to not do things. It's really easy to not do something, it's harder to do something.
The inner contradictions of Saryn 3.5's spores
in Warframes
Posted
Does it make more sense? No, not really, though English is my third language so maybe I just don't understand you. It sounds like you're saying that if a soccer player shoots himself in the leg if he scores goals too fast than it's not contradictory to his purpose as a soccer player because he's not the be-all and end-all function for scoring goals and winning matches, but rather the soccer team as a whole is what scores goals and wins matches. The soccer player is still handicapping himself, even if the team steps in to help him limp around to victory.
Not to mention, how did you even reach the conclusion that it's not supposed to be a Saryner's main tool for killing? When you have frames like Nidus and Exalted-Users(Excal, Valkyr, Mesa, Ivara) walking around, it's clear that some frames are in fact supposed to be killing mainly through their abilities.
You also can't, as you seem to have suggested, infer that since spores struggle to be the main damage-dealers then they aren't supposed to be the main damage-dealers. If no frame ability was ever incompetent at doing what it's supposed to do, no frame would EVER get buffed in any patch.
To some extent, that's affirming the consequent. Define A as a frame ability/weapon/etc, if A isn't supposed to do B(say, killing enough to be the main killing-tool of a player), A will struggle to do B. That doesn't mean that if an A struggles to do B, then it's because it wasn't supposed to do B to begin with. Go to the Ember-fans and ask them if they think Ember is supposed to be what she currently is, I'll wait.
Now I personally don't know what DE's true intentions are with spores. What I do know is, that spores 2.0 were better as a debuff-tool and worse as a damage tool than 3.0/3.5. Their ticks did virtually nothing, but they spread twice the proc-types around and the procs they spread were more universally useful. (Corrosive is almost exclusively an anti-grineer tool since very very very few non-grineer enemies have armor, while viral and poison hurt all factions to some extent)
Spores 3.0/3.5 deal massively more damage but are worse debuffers. This sounds to me like they were trying at least to some extent to make Exalted-Spores, but I am not a mind reader.
I don't have a twitter or reddit so I don't know all the things the devs tell us. Maybe they explained themselves better somewhere else, I don't know. What I do know, is that if they were trying to make Exalted-Spores, then spores have issues, as my original post stated. If what you implied is correct and spores were only meant to be an assistance to other kill-tools rather than the stars of their own show, than spores 2.0 did that better and we're walking in the opposite direction of where we want to go. No matter what DE intended, it seems to me like they could have done better.