Jump to content

RivaAurelius

PC Member
  • Content Count

    372
  • Joined

Community Reputation

555

About RivaAurelius

  • Rank
    Silver Disciple

Recent Profile Visitors

617 profile views
  1. By your logic, any ability that can buff yourself or other team mates should then be nerfed, to preserve the interests of the original frame's position in a group. Smite infusion? Nerfed. Shock trooper? Nerfed. That's not what this system was for.
  2. Why do most frames need a damage buff? Is it because damage is the meta, or because their kits are inadequate for the game? Rhino is not built around roar. I don't know why people say this, but I rarely see it. Most meta builds for rhino focus on iron shrapnel and ironclad charge for tankability. Roar is a nice damage bonus on top of that, but certainly not the bread and butter of rhino's kit. Rhino is not even used as a buffer very much, because in case you have not noticed, there are frames that do the job of a team buffer far better than rhino does. Even an oberon with a smite
  3. From what I can gather, your point undoes itself. You say DE HAS to nerf damage buff abilities because they are better than nothing? But if they are better than nothing, nerfing them won't make other abilities more attractive, it'll just make people unhappy, which is what happened. Other abilities didn't become attractive and the original Helminth dev workshop thread had over 200 pages of angry players who were unhappy with the nerfs. As we can clearly see, the nerfs did not do what DE intended, which was to make players consider other abilities, it ended up not changing the outcome at all. Th
  4. With regards to last night's home devstream, isn't it funny how the devs nerfed abilities like roar in order to prevent roar from being the overwhelming choice for players to subsume, AND YET players still chose roar the most anyway. It's almost as if nerfing roar didn't make decoy any more useful XD now marked for death has been nerfed, probably because it is popular, but that doesn't make the more useless helminth powers more useful. Buffs not nerfs, come on!
  5. So DE have nerfed marked for death but haven't even commented on or addressed the overwhelming feedback that the resource costs are ridiculous? Kind of a bruh moment.
  6. I'm not going to bother anymore. That is a gross misrepresentation of myself and my views.
  7. Are we going to see any adjustments to the resource costs on Helminth? This is getting a little silly.
  8. It's not even that, it is that the circumstances of a witch hunt are completely different to the circumstances surrounding business decisions. While they both hinge on popular opinion, there are different variables to be concidered in either situation. While I disagree with mob rule (which I shall point out, we are not the mob), when it comes to business, the decisions MUST be based on the feedback of your customers, and this means that the majority of the customer base should be listened to, not the minority. When dealing with issues of justice, the popular opinion should not even be part of
  9. Erm except this is a video game. This is being sold to customers. If 99% of your customers don't like what you want to sell, you will lose 99% of your customers. This isn't even business 101, this is prerequisite knowledge for business 101. As I earlier pointed out (and as you seem to have avoided addressing), while the argumentum ad populum is normally a fallacy in debate, we are debating balancing issues for a video game, where the majority of players are to be catered to. So again, stop trying to frame mine and other's words through the lense of fallacy when it is clearly not. You are tryin
  10. This is hardly a witch hunt. Please stop being disengenuous.
  11. Thank you for the commendation. I try my best to argue in good faith, even though I haven't exactly had the best experience with doing so on the forums.
  12. Nowhere does it say to feed the helminth literal hours of your time for a single feed though. It does say feed the helminth, but not with your life. Rehashing the fact that they said feed it isn't gonna make it any more reasonable. Also notice, I did not call YOU, arbitrary, elitist, etc. I addressed your logic as such. Because it is an apt description of the logic you are using. It is like telling someone they did a stupid thing without calling them stupid, see? You are trying to take the moral highground as if I am using ad hominem attacks, when I never actually insulted you, simply said wha
  13. I am not trying to shut you up. I am simply telling you that I and other people in this thread will not jump through your hoops, nor will we be expected to jump through your hoops, when voicing our opinions. You didn't call my evidence faulty, but you sure as sugar did dismiss it as "imprecise". If by that logic, you can dismiss my evidence, then by the same logic, I can dismiss your "evidence". I would like to point out by the way, that your "evidence" was the absence of evidence. I, however, demonstrated that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Your arguments are about as solid a
×
×
  • Create New...