Jump to content


Xbox Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About (XB1)ShonFr0st

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

309 profile views
  1. I didn't mean it as a derail. PvP content vastly differs from PvE content: PvP is endlessly replayable because people have endlessly different behaviors and offer constant challenge. As long as the combat mechanics are decent, players will become the content itself. PvE is totally different, because AI is completely limited. As such, replay value is often delivered through RNG rewards that require multiple runs, or procedural variation. It is obvious, but both these systems have limitations of their own: you'll eventually collect every single reward, and you'll eventually see every relevant combination of procedural content, especially if the variables of said content are limited. This brings the discussion back to bounties: their concept is pretty similar to regular missions, take a random location (tile) and put a random objective there. The problem with bounties is that they lack variables. There are, maybe, around 7 objectives in PoE and Orb Vallis, and locations can't be procedurally refreshed similarly to regular tile sets, because the landscape is fixed. That's why most people find them boring: once you complete every bounty tier once, you have essentially seen everything the landscape has to offer. That's probably why chaos asked what people would find fun. Because in a PvE game, you either repeat a heavily structured mission a bunch of times for a random reward to drop, or you play constantly varying scenarios. Otherwise, there's zero replay value (see most single player games. Nothing against those, just a consideration). And that is also why I asked you what you were doing playing a PvE game, if everything you consider "replayable and fun" is PvP, because the former is innately less prone to replayability. In all this, I think HoD bounties are a step-up, simply because they integrate procedural tile generation based on the "phase" of the landscape, as Steve stated. So, there will be more scenarios to fight through, leading to higher longevity.
  2. Why are you even on Warframe, a PvE game, if everything you listed as "fun" is PvP? Legitimately asking.
  3. Ok, I see your point now, and I respect your opinion, it's a different perspective but a valid one nonetheless. I think we can agree to disagree, as I still believe that the current meta disproportionally favors one toolset at the expense of others, and I feel it would be healthier for the game if every play style had the same chance to shine in an environment that calls for multiple playstyles to cooperate for success.
  4. Where did I suggest that? I have nothing against AoE, but I absolutely dislike it when it is strong to the point that whenever I'm about to start a kill based mission, I have to say: "Do I bring what I like, and take twice the time, or bring a Nuke and blaze through this sluggish grind?". I'm not proposing to nerf AoE to the ground, but to rebalance it, in combination with changes to enemy and mission design, in order to make all the instruments in our toolbox (stealth, single target damage, cc, healing, buffing) worthwhile, instead of a voluntary handicap. Yes, this is my opinion on how the game should be. But while the current state of things leaves everyone that doesn't like nuking with the choice of being effective or having fun, a more balanced power landscape, along with enemies and encounters that require multiple specializations, would be a net gain for everybody.
  5. I'm sorry, I really don't see the point you're trying to make. My own anecdotal evidence was used only to indicate those instances in which I saw some kind of role differentiation being used, you can disagree with that but it doesn't disprove that support roles are largely inconsequential in this game, simply because they are not needed in most content.
  6. It's fine if that's their idea of fun, but, in a game in which the entire goal is grinding items, what's the point of having options if a single, small subset of game styles, i.e. AoE nuking, is the most effective at mostly everything in the game by a large margin? The existence of "other roles" is wishful thinking at best, the only two instances in which I legitimately saw people organizing in roles were scarlet spear and eidolons. That leaves out a pretty hefty chunk of the game, to put it lightly. Generally, there's no need for support when most nuke frames can sustain themselves health-wise with no problems and when energy economy is non-existent, there's no need for CC since enemies are already CCed by death, and there is no need for buffing when enemies die in the blink of an eye anyways. In a game in which the main focus is matchmade missions, telling someone to avoid playing public if they want to go with a non-nuking playstyle and not play hallway simulator is a clear sign of underlaying issues with the game systems. DE and the community should strive for a game in which each of the tools at the player's disposal is useful and needed in its own way, so that players in a group can specialize and cooperate, instead of always, exclusively min-maxing for AoE nuking potential and competing with each other for kills.
  7. Deimos is the second moon of Mars, the first being Phobos. So I'm wondering if this is supposed to be a new tileset/tileset revamp that will add a destination, Deimos, or a single open world node, maybe accessible from Mars or Phobos. The architecture seems nice, it gives a Destiny 2 Leviathan feel, and that gun, supposedly a hand cannon, is very intriguing to me.
  8. Should DE decently test things before releasing them, and foresee glaring balance issues? Definitely. Are nerfs universally bad? Nope, they are sometimes the only way to bring balance, and with it, choice, engagement, and ultimately fun.
  9. I agree completely with this. Daggers are universally recognized in games as the stealth weapon, it feels kind of cheap that big, unwieldy hammers steal their spotlight. This is part of a wider problem with DE's combat design, particularly the fact that there's little specialization needed to face enemies as they are all the same, so most of our very diverse options get shelved in favor of those that have the unidimensional trait of high AoE damage. And as such, typically single-target oriented weapons, like daggers and semi auto weapons, see very little use.
  10. Just a personal opinion, but I feel everything that you would mod for anyway, like range and elemental damage, can hardly be considered a special trait. 0.45m more range is but a drop in the 3m range Primed Reach gives, and you would probably go for a Weeping wounds/Blood rush hybrid, with Primed Fever strike + ice and heat 90% for Viral+Heat. Condition overload, Primed Reach, organ shatter and naramon to maintain combo. In all of that, the innate Toxin hasn't aided much.
  11. I personally feel that primed melees are incredibly lackluster most of the time. Just massive stat sheets with a different skin on top. And those stats, most of the time, are definitely overkill, so they all feel boringly similar. Melees already have less room for uniqueness since shooting mechanics allow for much more variety, so at least on primes, it would be nice if each melee had a small unique ability. The tatsu, even though it isn't a prime, is a perfect example of it, it has a small but useful perk that helps give the weapon more personality.
  12. I tend to prefer richer designs, and the recent primes have been amazing imo. Titania Prime has to be one of my personal favorites, with Ivara coming close behind. I still hope we'll sometime get an auxiliary toggle for her skirt, I love using the Kuvael helmet with her and it would fit so much better without the bright jelly stuff.
  13. Except I'm not. I'm really tired of my words getting twisted, of context being ignored, of quotes being extrapolated just to fit one's narrative, and especially, I'm extremely tired of being talked down and outright insulted by idiots who don't even understand the game mechanics they are talking about. Kardas. The difference in slash procs you experience has this explanation, as I've already stated: This is how you calculated damage multipliers when dealing with Critical Tiers and headshot multipliers, as headshots, other than multiplying the base damage, also multiply the multiplier, if that makes sense. Straight from the wiki: Damage multiplier = Headshot Multi×(1+Crit Tier×(2×Modded Crit Multi−1)) For a yellow crit, this is equal to 2x(1+1x(2x5.9-1)= 21.6x For an orange crit it is equal to 2x(1+2(2x5.9-1)=41.2x Against the Heavy Gunner, you get a tier 2 crit (orange) with the radial portion of the attack (2944,9dmg) and a tier 1 crit (yellow) with the direct portion of the damage (656,4dmg) Applying the multipliers, and the slash tic multiplier, you get (2944,9x41,2+656,4x21,6)x0,35=47424,458 For the Corrupted heavy gunner, you hit with a tier 2 crit with the direct, a tier 1 with the radial So, the slash proc should deal, per tic, (656,4x41,2+2944,9x21,6)x0,35=31728,732 As you might see, the numbers seem off, but they are off by around the same percentage: (51529-47424)/51529=0,079 (34837-31728)/34837=0,089 Which makes me believe there's some buffing effect at play. Also. Straight from the wiki, on true damage: While not specifically stated anywhere in the game, most Eximus enemies will resist this damage type, causing it to do less damage compared to most enemies. This in turn makes reliance on slash procs to deal heavy damage less reliable. I'm done. There's no point in discussing semantics with you, you'll se just what you want to see.
  14. I'll let you in on a little secret, both a heavy gunner and a corrupted heavy gunner have the same damage reduction at level 140 - 96,51%. So, even if armor reduced slash procs, which it doesn't, because slash procs deal true damage and scale off modded damage + critical modifiers, you'd see the same results on both enemies. It's easy to see the reason of the discrepancy: on the heavy gunner, you got an orange crit slash proc with the radial, and a yellow crit slash proc with the direct; on the corrupted heavy gunner, you got an orange crit slash proc with the direct, and a yellow crit slash proc with the radial. Of course, the radial crit brings more damage, so here you have the difference. No armor involved. But no, I'm the one who's always wrong. Also, would you look at that. Against the heavy gunner, 2 bomblets hit (34 and 20 dmg), against the Corrupted, all 3 hit (23, 28, and 28 dmg). But our lord and savior UltraKardas says that Yeah, because having 4 less instances of damage, per arrow (so 12 less on a 3 arrow hit) that can Proc viral and slash for upwards of 100% more damage to health isn't a nerf in damage, not at all. I've already shown you that it isn't the case because of YouTube's video compression, the red lingers after death because the map is static, YouTube doesn't update the pixels because there is not enough movement. So it is unreliable as there is no clear indicator of death. Yes, damage numbers do linger after death, but they appear in the exact moment damage is delivered. If that damage is lethal, meaning that those numbers are the last damage indicators to appear, and no more appear after that, then the instant in which they become visible on the screen is the instant of death. Enormous holes? Where? Where is the evidence that defies these two claims? "Pre-nerf Bramma was the best primary by a margin in most content" and "Post-nerf Bramma is a usable weapon in most content" You just keep rehashing what has already been said, and to which I've already responded in my previous posts. You make wild claims, I counter them, you ignore the counter, and keep making those same wild claims. "Bramma isn't effective against bosses" Bosses were out of the discussion a very long time ago, almost from its inception. The only relevant boss in the game currently is Eidolons, and even that is debatable. They comprise a very niche part of content. And their meta is extremely tight because they have immunity to status and radial damage. For anything else, Bramma dominated unchecked. And that "Everything else" is 95% of the game's content. "Bramma can't do status/crit/heal/x/y/z better than X weapon" That does not matter when enemies are dead. And as all our tests have shown, Bramma is pretty damn good at making enemies dead. The combination of its ease of use, high radial damage, numerous damage instances, spammability, lack of LoS checks made it far outperform any other primary. You still have to produce evidence that a single primary, unassisted, could perform better than pre-nerf Bramma. The nerf removed two components, the spammability, and the damage instances, making attention to ammo economy a requirement for using the bow effectively. "If you said ammo didn't matter back then, but you say ammo matters now, you are an hypocrite" Tell me, if today I made the claim "Inaros doesn't care for the damage he takes" and tomorrow DE nerfed his health from 9k to 1k, would that make me an hypocrite because now, suddenly, damage matters for Inaros? This is the exact same situation. The conditions surrounding that statements have completely changed for the Bramma in particular. Back then, when Bramma had 15 reserves and a 10 ammo pick up, plus full benefits from ammo mutations, ammo did not matter. DE nerfed its ammo capacity and pick up rate so severely precisely because ammo is incredibly abundant in the game, and because their aim was to make the ammo economy of the weapon a weakness for an otherwise flawless weapon. Does that weakness make the weapon unusable? No, as my video has shown. With a completely regular build and some care, you can circumvent the limitation, but it still requires the player of some conscious thought. "Bramma doesn't work in steel path" You seem to be such an expert on steel path, considering that you don't even have access to it. Firstly, steel path is a completely optional game mode that yields no gameplay-affecting rewards that can't be farmed elsewhere, and has a totally different meta than regular play. Secondly, the only evidence supporting that claim is a video of a capture mission played inefficiently and with an ineffective build. "Nullifiers are the bane of Bramma's existence, you run out of ammo or have to enter the bubble to kill them" Both those strategies are wrong. If you had read my previous post with a decent amount of attention, and had watched my video, you would have noticed that the best strategy against nullifier isn't shooting at the bubble, nor entering it. Considering that a nullifier bubble takes a minimum of 5 consecutive instances of 400 damage to be destroyed, a single shot of post nerf-bramma, having from 8 to 12 damage instances depending on multishot, aimed at the ground right outside the bubble, can instantly pop it, if the cluster bombs don't land too far away. You need 2 shots maximum to deal with a nullifier, from a safe distance. And, as the video shows, enemies are rigged to stand inside the bubble, so most of the time, you get a pretty big return for the ammo investment. Once again, taken completely out of context. In the context of the Lenz versus Bramma, I said: "If both weapons have a 90% and a 60/60, both weapons have a total of +150% elemental damage. If I were to switch the Lenz's 60/60 with another 90%, I would do the same on the Bramma, leading to both weapons having a total of +180%. Which wouldn't change the COMPARATIVE damage between the two. Their difference in DPS would remain the exact same." The raw of both weapons would certainly increase, but their relative DPS would stay the same. In that context, that of a comparison, what mattered was precisely the relative difference. In this case, showing that the weapon is useful, what matters is the absolute power. Those are completely different situations, but of course you are on a witch hunt to find mistakes because you can't produce anything convincing. Completely inaccurate, and a misrepresentation of my stance. I've already responded to this criticism. I do not want all weapons to be equal, I don't want the mk1 braton to compete with MR14+ weapons, I want all weapons in the same bracket of mastery to perform in a comparable way. I already explained this in my previous post, but the Kuva Bramma had more damage, more range, more fire rate, more crit, and more damage instances than both the Kuva Tonkor and the Kuva Ogris for no tradeoff whatsoever. The existence of the Bramma itself invalidated two weapons that have the same exact method of acquisition, and the same exact mastery requirement. The Kuva Bramma existing made pursuing those two weapon a completely worthless endeavor, except for mastery. That is what we should avoid for the health of the game. "Outdated" by what standards? If the current weapons become outdated, that is because there are new challenging enemies that are too strong for our gear, so a new set of powerful weapons is released to deal with those enemies. In warframe this never happens. New, stronger weapons are released, but the enemies in all relevant content stay the same. This is simply called power creep, and it is way more dangerous of a mentality than balancing the outliers. Pursuing power creep means invalidating all existing content, making combat shallow and uninteresting because everything dies in a breeze, which in turn entails massive balance changes to enemies and weapons when the situation becomes unbearable, only for all of this to repeat itself in a perpetual cycle of releasing "better options" just for the sake of having "better options", and then having to buff all of the other weapons when they become useless for new players, and then buffing the enemies so they don't die in one shot, inevitably reaching the same status as if those "better options" were never released to begin with, or were nerfed comparatively to other guns. It is inefficient, and it leads to burnout for players and developers. Instead of doing that, the devs should focus on releasing enemies and content that favors specialization and requires multiple specializations to work together, so that we can have horizontal progression in various, useful niches, instead of an endless and unhealthy vertical progression that invalidates previous content.
  15. Ok, then tell me, where does this "level cap" manifest itself? Because if it doesn't in survival, then it doesn't in ESO, defense, disruption, exterminate, excavation and interception as well, because they spawn enemies with very similar densities. What does this leave? All non-endless missions, which don't even have killing enemies as an objective. I took a survival specifically because it was the fastest way to make enemies scale up. And even then, it took a waste of 40 minutes of my life, for no additional reward, just to reach level 120, from a Kuva Requiem that already started at level 60. In normal missions, even if it existed, you'd never encounter this "level cap". It is a steel path issue at best, a game mode that is totally optional as it yields no power, and even then, you played with a god awful build, so I think there's massive room for improvement there. I'll test as soon as I get the steel path on console. Because you said that the cap was at 120. I knew that claim was absolutely ludicrous, so I went and tested. And lo and behold, the gun did fairly well. You don't seem to understand the consequences of your own claim; "Level cap of 120" means that at that level, the guns becomes totally worthless. That means, it is constantly out of ammo and doesn't kill a thing. That also means, it starts to struggle way before level 120, especially because enemy scaling has its steepest point at level 90, and after that, the curve flattens. Unfortunately my xbox stopped recording after ten minutes, I went up to the 60 minute mark, and with level 150 enemies, the gun was still doing fine. Yeah, it ran out of ammo once, but my claim is simply that the gun is far from useless, while yours is that the gun does become useless at level 120. That was proven false, against the toughest faction in the game, and level 120 is the highest level in which content is relevant, so I think the statement transitions pretty well to the rest of the game. Hm, what? The video was from level 116 to 135. That's not "Just below", that's on and above. I didn't need to. Your claim was that the level cap was 120, and I showed you that the gun doesn't even struggle at 120. Also, I honestly had no intention to waste time going for endurance. I hoped a survival sortie came around, but I wasn't lucky enough. You see, here's why your claim is completely nonsensical. Firstly, I didn't have Primed Sure Footed on. I used kinetic plating on gauss, which prevents status effects and knockdowns, trait that's accessible and present on many other frames (Titania, Atlas, Nezha, Rhino just to name a few). Secondly, you, as Kardas did, always put a million conditions on whoever tries to disprove your completely general claim. "Bramma has a level cap of 120", but whenever someone shows any evidence, the claim becomes "Bramma has a level cap of 120, but the mission must be non-endless, you must play without knockdown prevention, on an open map, blindfolded, with one hand, only six mods, extinguished dragon key, Fox only, Final Destination." You instantly lose credibility when your claim becomes invalid for half the game modes and any build that keeps the gear's weaknesses in mind. If people play sub-optimally, should I conform and waste the potential of a piece of gear? Of course, if you draw comparisons with people who don't even know how to build a crit primary, then well, of course the Bramma is useless. And so is 50% of the arsenal. After all, you destroy nullifier bubbles with Bramma by directly shooting at them (instead of the ground, which one shots them, as seen in my video), so you are clearly the expert here. If those things are so obvious, why didn't you mention them? You could have said "The Bramma has a level cap of 120, but only in these conditions". Instead, here you are making wild claims just to scream "nerf bad". I do not think the Bramma is op right now, I'm merely saying that it isn't useless as you seem to be implying. Pulled every possible trick... This is hilarious. You know how it would have looked like, had I pulled every trick? Firstly, I would have used a 5 forma Bramma with Primed Cryo Rounds and Infected Clip instead of Cryo Rounds and Malignant Force, giving me approximately 75% more raw damage. Plus, a beastly riven that compressed both Point Strike and Armaments, leaving a slot for ammo drum. A full Vigilante set on the frame, Primed Sure Footed on a Mirage, or hell, just protea/ammo pads to have infinite munition. Magus Anomaly to bunch enemies before shooting. There where multiple ways for me to actually enhance my gameplay, yet you have to nitpick for choosing survival, and using a way to prevent knockdown. Also, the very notion of a "level cap" means that whatever means I try to get above it, I simply can't. If by "pulling tricks" as you say, I can exceed it easily, then it means there was no cap to begin with at that level. I believe you enjoy the Bramma, otherwise you wouldn't be here criticizing the nerf. I, in fact, like the gun as well; I just thought that before its nerf, it was way too powerful and easy to use. I do not think the gun is OP now, the reduced ammo count and lower status potential put limitations on it. It is in your interest that there are ways to still make the weapon extremely powerful, so you can still enjoy it, isn't it? I ran out of ammo once, and in that same survival, ran out again some time after the end of the recording. But, running out of ammo doesn't mean the weapon is unusable, you have 2 other weapons for a reason. You literally have to kill 5 enemies with a melee, and can get back on a spree with the Bramma. I think this was the intended way to use the gun since the nerf, for it to have some downtime in exchange for power.
  • Create New...