TheGodofWiFi
-
Posts
1,425 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheGodofWiFi
-
-
2 hours ago, ALOEDA1 said:
(More scenario rubbish)
I've also had an experience where I was in a squad the had two Loki's in it and they went down repeatedly while I was playing Oberon. This scenario business is getting us nowhere as we can all recall times where one frame appears weaker than another. If you're going down as Inaros, then I'm sorry but that's your problem. I still have one of the longest survival records with him, next to Chroma.
Saying "oh I was in a mission with so and so, and they did this and that while I did what I did" is not helping anyone. We all have different experiences and I'm sorry to break it to you, but just because you were partnered with good Loki players and you were a bad player, that doesn't mean it's their fault.
2 hours ago, ALOEDA1 said:don't say that i'm faking or try to dance around the subject, this was in the link you posted.
You are purposely trolling now. Taking the two words out of context with the massive paragraph proceeding it, does not make Loki a tank. If you cast your eyes back to the other sentences you'll see this:
Tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves in order to protect other characters or units. Since this role often requires them to suffer large amounts of damage, they rely on large amounts of vitality or armor, healing by other party members, evasiveness and misdirection or self regeneration. Tanks are often represented as large or heavily armored.
You took those tow words out of context, so of course it can be applied to Loki. Unfortunately that is not how it works. You are grasping at straws.
2 hours ago, ALOEDA1 said:>y nerf loki
because i want to play him.
Then go play him. He's perfectly fine the way he is now. Maybe actually take him beyond a lvl10 mission or beyond Akkad then maybe you can get a feel for the frame. No one is going to nerf a frame based on your personal preference, so get that idea out of your head.
-
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:
When survivability matters, Loki have more than Nova, period (NOTHING in the game gives the solo survivability of Disarm + Rad proc + Perma Invisibility, just the latter is the reason Naramon is strong). Stop arguing about that, you're wrong and you keep proving your bias, because it's really immature to keep disagreeing on known fact and telling people that they aren't rational.
On paper of course Nova has less surviviability. However, you all seem to be looking at the paper reports on these frames and not actual gameplay. I have seen more Loki's go down than Nova's in my time, because they get cocky or they just aren't paying attention to the enemies. You keep proving that you're biased against Loki by continuously trying to prove that he is better than everyone else.
If you really want to compare paper potential, then almost every frame has more survivability than Nova. So does that automatically mean we need to nerf them? No.
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:The wave goes through walls, on most tileset, by the time you parkour your way to the ennemies they are primed. What was your argument again ?
My argument was that at the start, Nova could Prime enemies all over the map instantaneously and blow them up. You've just gone off the rails and tarted talking about the wave. If I were as biased as you, I'd be asking every single frame that towered over Nova to be nerfed.
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:You really just said that MP is a Nuke and WoF isn't ? WoF along with Mirage with AoE weapons are the most well known frames for "welp not gonna play this one".
Yes MP used to be a nuke because it killed everything on the entire map instantaneously. Mirage + Simulor was nerfed, rightly so. WoF is not a nuke as it does not kill everything, everywhere no matter what room the Ember is currently in. Do you not get what a traditional nuke is?
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:Will you keep saying "oh look I'm S#&$ting on facts because I want and I'm not biased".
Facts? What facts? All you and others have done is throw different scenarios at me where you make Loki out to the most OP frame ever. That is not facts, that is dressing up something you want nerfed. I can make a strong case for how Nova, Ivara, Equinox, Nidus, Excalibur, Chroma, Inaros and a bunch of other frames can trivialise enemies. But of course you won't admit that, because you're too biased against Loki.
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:Trinity Blessing with Glaive was changed, it benefitted the squad. Val'kyr perma hysteria was too strong, it never hindered the squad.
Those modes made you invincible. The old Iron Skin used to do the same thing and you could just run through missions without ever taking damage. DE don't want you to run through the game resisting 99.9% of damage with no consequences. The difference is with Loki, is that he does not become invincible while invisible. I know that might seem preposterous to a biased man such as yourself, but it's actually true.
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:Oh and I'm sure, the Limbo rework was so beneficial for squads that nobody talks about him on the forum and he's played most of the times in squad ? He's great when used with cautious, yet the rework made him easier to troll people, ie "getting the fun out of the game".
The Limdo rework brought a lot of unbalance issues with Limbo at first, but DE have since fixed it. Trolling people with him is definitely not as easy as it was when he was first out. He is a benefit to the squad as he can now freeze priority targets on the battlefield. He's now in the same value as Vauban as a battle tactician.
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:DE does a pretty good job, but they don't do things only because the community wants it, they do what it needs to be done.
Actually the community does have a say in these things. DE make core gameplay changes such as Damage 2.0 and Parkour 2.0 by themselves, but everything else is run past us for our approval. I'll bring up Vacuum one more time as an example of when DE made a completely nonsensical decision, which the community rejected. In their eyes for some reason Vacuum needed to be nerfed, but for everyone else, that was a bad move.
As many people here have also said, a Loki nerf wouldn't serve any purpose at all, just like Vacuum.
11 hours ago, Aranaevens said:I'm out of this topic, you missed the point of the topic, you argue against facts and tell people they are immature because you can't read a topic properly and get your facts straight.
Another instance of someone avoiding a direct question. You and the others have provided no facts whatsoever, instead shouting "LOKI IS MORE POWERFUL THAN EVERYONE INVISIBILITY MAKES HIM UNKILLABLE MEH MEH".
I asked you a simple question; how would a Loki nerf benefit the game? You failed to answer and have instead opted out of the conversation. Fine by me. Hope you have a nice day.
-
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:
>INAROS BLAH BLAH
inaros, to be effective in high level missions has to constantly charge and release his ultimate, because to get good heal, you need to release ultimate, and to get ultimate, you need to get heal. inaros has lower movement speed as to loki, and lower damage potential. and the ironic bit is, despite putting three times the level of effort loki puts in to be as alive, he's aproximately three times less useful as compared to a 75 plat, easy boss, lowest crafting requirements, single button press and has more EHP than rhino loki.
Inaros can lock down entire rooms with his ultimate and recharge his health instantly. If you have built him correctly, you never ever die. Why do you also keep bringing up movement speed like it's an actual valid point? Bullet jumping has made base movement speed obsolete since you can just launch yourself across hallways and wide rooms. This is how I know that you are simply looking for anything to complain about for the sake of complaining.
Lower damage potential? He can one-shot enemies with his blind. Put a dagger with Covert Lethality on there and you're pretty much sorted. His devour ability also allows you to be invincible as you chug away at an enemies health while restoring your own. If you think Inaros is less useful than Loki, then I'm sorry but you are just not being serious at all. You and the others are just going to extremes and think that they matter. Next thing you'll be saying that every frame is inferior to Loki.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:>loki dont do damage boi
stealth finishers, unrestrained launcher use, the radial disarm.
You know there is a quote button here. Unrestrained launcher use? What does that even mean?
Inaros has stealth finishers. So does Excalibur. So does Ivara, Equinox, Ash. Hell even the Vaykor Sydon allows you to do blind finishers. This is where your point is once again rendered moot as there are a bunch of other frames and items in the game that can do stealth finishers and multipliers.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:>every frame stops enemies from shooting you + passive aggressive comment
loki has four of those abilities, plus irradiating disarm which prevents them from even shooting you
Loki has two abilities that truly take enemy attention away from you. Also Irradiating Disarm wears off you know. Nyx also has an ability that makes enemies not attack you. So do Oberon and Vauban.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:>decoy dies in two hits
not when you got radial disarm up, in which it gathers enemies, attracts attention, and sets up tons of kill potential
Then the decoy gets hit once and dies, making the enemies come towards you. Also I'll remind you that enemies still atack you if you'r closer to them. Jesus this is going nowhere at all now. Look forward to the lock.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:>come back with a real answer please
this is coming from "nova is tankier". neither are real tanks, but a slow won't make nova more survivable than mister 4 tank abilities
Another example of "Well you said-". A slow Nova will have more survivability than she does when MP is not active.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:>loki aint a tank
1.tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves
decoy
Hmm, notice the word themselves in that sentence. You know what a tank is, pretending to be stupid is not helping. Tanks take damage themselves, they don't spawn decoys. Also once again decoy dies in two hits.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:2.evasiveness and misdirection
your copypaste actively describes loki
Does it? Because I'm pretty sure Loki isn't known as a "meat shield". Please stop trying to turn Loki into a tank. You're just undermining yourself.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:3.does not do the following: well against damage
can leave the damage any time he wants, irradiating disarm allows him to never get focused. tanks actually have a harder time avoiding the beatdown..
Tanks are supposed to take the beatdown. They are supposed to take damage head on, not evade it. Being an Inaros main you should know that. It seems like everyone I talk to too has no idea what they are talking about. Chroma is the example of a typical tank in an MMO.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:loki has no risk in his playstyle as he just needs to get disarm + cloak setup and never get hit.
Another person who's never played Loki.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:>As the gentlemen before me said, TF2 is a completely different game. Comparing it to Warframe is illogical and does not help your argument at all.
fine, want me to compare it to final fantasy classes?
No, because this is Warframe, not Final Fantasy. Comparing two separate games is not valid as they are completely different.
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:if i feel that a class in my game requires no skill at all and i can never play it because self-respect and resistance to being absorbed in to the horde, then it's a serious problem.
Saying Loki requires no skill is almost as stupid as saying Oberon is "useless and the worst frame evar!". Into the horde wow. So by not agreeing with the majority that somehow makes you right?
36 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:i want him nerfed because i don't want to play something easy or feel like a child playing him. every other game has a skill requirement for easier classes, this one doesnt.
So you want him nerfed because in your opinion, he's too easy to play. This is the epitome of fallacy. I doubt you've even touched a Loki long enough to get some real experience, I don't think your experience counts for everyone here. In fact that's one of the reason people are asking for buffs to his stats.
I'm getting pretty bored of hearing nothing but petty excuses and nitpicks. Everyone I've talked has not provided any real evidence that Loki hampers gameplay for others like true press4towin frames did.
This thread should have never happened. Someone lock it please.
-
10 minutes ago, cghawk said:
ivara sleep has health threshhold, equinox gets ragdolled if you don't 1 shot them.
Ivara can spam sleep arrows with huge range as can Equinox. Also the ragdoll remain asleep even if your first shot doesn't kill them and they also are opened up to finishers. Need I go on?
12 minutes ago, cghawk said:you don't need super awareness to simply look behind you when cloak is about to run out,
Maybe you didn't consider the fact that you might be concentrating on something else, say an enemy in front of you. See this is what happens when arguments devolve into back and forth scenario rubbish that never goes anywhere as we can be here all day talking about different gameplay scenes.
14 minutes ago, cghawk said:if you are cloaked you are not an enemy they will swing at,
Unless of course you're doing a melee and have the Irradiating Disarm equipped. Then you get downed while they hit other enemies. Also when firing weapons, they run over to your position and do slash at you or wait until you're uncloaked.
15 minutes ago, cghawk said:where am I backtracking hmm? as you can see I said nova is SLIGHTLY more tanky, I did not mention her survivabiltiy which is significantly less than Loki
You said Nova had less survivability than Loki in terms of stats. She also has survivability equal to Loki as she has an ultimate that slows enemies down and a bomb that detonates everything in a wide radius.
18 minutes ago, cghawk said:there you go again ''benefit this. benefit that'' you're basically saying the nerfs are bad because they nerf him ,yeah no duh, that's what nerfs do and are for.
You seem to miss the point at every turn. Nerfs are supposed to make the game better and more balanced for people. As I have already stated, multiple times, unwanted nerfs are generally not very popular and are reverted pretty quickly. Nerfing should not make the game worse and not offer any benefits in return otherwise the game just becomes less and less fun for everyone.
20 minutes ago, cghawk said:it has comparable power to MP and Poalrize which were nerfed to bei a slowly expanding wave, disarm deserves that as well
Goodness me. MP and Polarise are two different kettle of fish to Radial Disarm. Do you seriously not get it? They are not in the same category. Disarm does no damage, while the others do. How many times do I need to point that out?
22 minutes ago, cghawk said:once again subjective, you may not have enjoyed such game play but others did, and those cases they did not benefit that specific frame or weapon that was nerfed, yet that is all you're arguing, that loki shouldn't be nerfed because the nerfs don't benefit loki, well obviously they wouldn't
Another point missed. I am against the nerfing of completely balanced things as there is no point to fixing what is not broken. Loki is not broken as he has very low direct survivability, which his powers compensate for. Making his powers weak, would just create an imbalance and reduce Loki to useless tier. You seem to think that Loki is the most OP frame in the game with massive damage and endless survivability. I don't think you've played him at all at this stage, because you'd know that is complete rubbish.
25 minutes ago, cghawk said:that's what nerfs generally do, if a nerf reduces resource amount dropped by 1% that makes it less fun, if a nerf fixes a gun so it no logner deals 1 billion damage a hit that's not fun, but at the end of the day fun, which is again purely subjective, isn't the deciding factor in balance
Again you brush off the point by going to different extremes. We already had a gun doing basically massive damage in the form of the gammacor. Yea sure it was fun for a while, but then everyone started using it and all the other weapons in the game became obsolete. So it had to be nerfed. That is the example of a good nerf that restores balance to the game. Do you see Loki's running around in every mission? No. Do you see the star map being overpopulated by Loki's? No. Loki was a popular frame before focus schools were a thing. He still is popular, but definitely not as he was before, with the introduction of Naramon which basically turned every frame in a miniature Loki. Difference is that Loki's invisibility does not allow him too;
1. Stay invisible indefinitely.
2. Use massive damage dealing abilities that are boosted by the stealth multiplier.
3. Allow for game-breaking combinations that frankly make the game boring to play after a while.
Also you avoid the question yet again; who on earth considers enemies having their weapons stripped away, not fun? Apparently there are "millions" of people who could think that, but you fail to give an example of such people.
33 minutes ago, cghawk said:says the players who is opposed to nerfs because they are nerfs, while wording it in vague ways like ''benefits''
I don't know whether you are ignoring my points on purpose or not. I don't oppose nerfs. I oppose nerfs that don't make the game better in any substantial way. I've already listed a ton of examples of good nerfs that restore balance to the game and you just continually ignore them. Repeating the same misconception that nerfs don't benefit people.
35 minutes ago, cghawk said:while it happened that 1 kill would cause all to die it happened and still happens plenty of times that a bunch of enemies in groups are still walking around waiting to be killed.
No. At the start, anything that was Primed would explode, not matter where they were. That is why she was an absolute monster when she was first released and she made all missions a cakewalk.
37 minutes ago, cghawk said:once again that argument can be used for nova and mag ''Then please do point me to a person who says that Mag making high level corpus easier to deal with, is not fun'' the subjectivity of fun is irrelevant when it comes to balance, polarize and disarm fit your argument so well yet 1 was nerfed and 1 was not
And here is the evidence of your fallacy. You do not answer my question at all and instead try to pose the same question to me. That is not how it works. You were the one who first said that there "are millions of people who could agree that having enemy weapons taken away is not fun". You are supoosed to back up that statement with evidence. You have not.
Also you again fail to realise that Mag's old Polarise, killed every enemy on the map. Loki's abilities never did that and they still don't. The same logic can't be applied to Mag because she used to be able to wipe a Corpus map clean instantly. That was why it was not fun. The same reason Mesa's Peacemaker was not fun or Saryn's Miasma etc. This is the third time I've had to explain this to you and you still do not understand. Or rather you do and are just ignoring it for the sake of arguing because you actually know that Polarise and Disarm function completely differently.
41 minutes ago, cghawk said:MP nerf, benefit? for some it isn't for some it is, mesa peacemaker nerf, benefit? for some it is for some it isn't,
Most people agree that the original MP and Peacemaker were overpowered and took the fun away from other people. They were lazy ways of dealing with enemies. Loki does not one-shot enemies with his ultimate and he does not take away killing opportunities from other players. It seems clear to me that you are trolling now as anyone with a basic understanding of logic, knows that massive damage nuke abilities and Radial Disarm are two completely different things. Loki users do not get lazy as they constantly have to watch their invisibility timer and spam disarm. Fail to do either of those things and he dies. Just like how Ivara dies if she doesn't spam her abilities and cloak, how Octavia dies if she doesn't spam her abilities and cloak. This can go on and on.
46 minutes ago, cghawk said:Loki Disarm changed to slowly expanding AOE, benefit? for some it is for some it isn't
Alright then, list the genuine benefits you would get from Loki not having an instantaneous weapon removal. And I mean a real reason. Not just one that's exclusive to you, but to the whole playerbase.
47 minutes ago, cghawk said:it does not need to help other players, it needs to help balance, nullifiers are a big nerf to abilities, and how exactly did it benefit players? it is a prime example of DE caring more about balance than ''fun''
You've basically just confirmed that DE have already addressed balance issues by adding nullifiers. They are a huge threat to any frame, but Loki? He enters a nully bubble and he's dead. They added in nullifiers instead of just straight up nerfing all the abilities, because that would not have been fun. So yes actually, they care about balance but they view the fun factor as more important. For if they didn't why didn't just straight up nerf the abilities?
50 minutes ago, cghawk said:perfectly balanced? is there nay proof of this? he trivializes ranged enemies instantly and for an infinite duration, that is not balanced
Yes it is as the enemies he takes weapons away from can one-shot most visible frames at high levels even the really tanky ones.He also gets one-shotted by mid-tier enemies that any other frame could take a good few hits from and any contact with an eximus spells death for him. The enemy scaling is unbalanced and Loki is just one of the many reliable ways to combat the system. Until the day DE reworks the entire scaling system, Loki will always remain a balanced frame. If the enemy scaling was fixed then Loki would most likely would need to be tweaked. However, with the nerfs to stealth and broken scaling, he is a perfect frame.
Why is it that you sound like you've never even taken a Loki out for a spin. You would know exactly how fragile he is if you did. A glass cannon so to speak.
Ivara trivialises content by putting everyone in a mile radius to sleep while staying permanently cloaked. Don't use the speed reduction as an excuse as you can easily roll around the map and not loose invisibility. The augment also increases her speed. So she can run basically at the speed of a normal frame while invisible indefinitely. Or perhaps equinox who can both slow down and put enemies to sleep. It seems that both of these frames meet your personal criteria for being OP. So why don't you ask for a nerf for them as well.
57 minutes ago, cghawk said:by nerfing loki's disarm the game difficulty can also be nerfed further, loki's disarm and the game's high damage are both problems.
The scaling will not be nerfed for quite a while seeing as how it is one of the core parts of the gameplay. Nerfing Loki, will not speed that process along. It will just make the game more frustrating and less fun to play. This is not a Dark Souls scenario in which difficult gameplay is rewarding. This is an MMO in which being one-shotted is very frustrating and breaks the game flow. The scaling is broken. Why not get that sorted first and then I will join you personally in looking at what frames will then constitute as OP.
As I said before though, I very highly doubt the scaling will be changed anytime soon. So as long as the enemies can trivialise any frame at higher levels, it stands to reason that we should have powerful frames like Loki in order to counteract this imbalance.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:I'd like to say the same to you, all your arguments are ''this nerfs loki so you shouldn't do it'' even though the entire point of this discussion is to nerf loki so obviously it would nerf Loki.
No, I'm saying that there is no benefit at all to nerfing Loki as it only makes the game harder. Remember that most people on this thread are also in favour of not nerfing Loki as he is fine as he is now. There are plenty of assassin characters like him in other MMO's that are very powerful but very weak. Look at Smites version of Loki for example. Massive critical damage, can go invisible and use a decoy, but toe-to-toe without abilities, he is pretty much one of the weakest characters in that game.
Assassin type characters are supposed to have some advantage otherwise no one would play them. Simple fact.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:Loki trivializes ranged enemies and removes the difficulty much like MP in the past.
Loki does not remove difficulty entirely at all. Enemies can still hit like a truck and will attack you an site. MP simply removed the challenge entirely by removing the enemies. As did all the other nuke abilities. I don't know whether or not you were around when the nuke nerf requests were on the forums, but they generally had a good reason to ask for a nerf. Loki however, was never among them at all, because he did not remove all the enemies from the map. Did I mention that he was also very weak?
Also as you said, DE introduced and Nullifiers to the game so that they can trivialise us. Also don't forget DE are introducing a Grineer version of that unit as well. Balance is second priority to fun, otherwise Nullififers would not exist and every warframe would be rubbish.
You keep talking as if there is an overwhelming majority in favour of Loki being nerfed. You are literally the only person I have encountered that is this dogmatic about him being nerfed and unsurprisingly you do not have any real reason for asking him to be, apart from the fact that you're in favour of nerfing something because you like it.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:it seems like your attitude is ''you either agree he doesn't need nerfs or you just like nerfs and want everything nerfed''
Yes that's correct in this case, because he does not need a nerf. Anyone who looks at a perfectly functional part of gameplay and says "that is unbalanced" is not very intelligent.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:how about you get out of your little world where ''loki is perfect'' and realize he has balance issues that needs to be addressed
How about you get out of your little world where you do nothing but concentrate on his abilities and actually play the frame. Maybe then you'd realise that Loki is one of the most balanced warframes in the game. His powerful abilities are compensated for by his utter lack of direct survivability. If Loki truly was as unbalanced as you say, then everyone on the forums would be asking for nerfs and everyone would using Loki in every mission. The fact is, that is not the case and you are in the minority that believes he is unbalanced.
Enemy scaling, overall survivability and just general common sense means he is not going to be nerfed. Loki is in a postion where tinkering with him would make him less useful in every sense of the word. No this is not like MP or Polarise as he does not nuke everything, so stop that regurgitation. Having a slow disarm would lower his usefulness and survivability drastically. I know you probably can't see that, but it's true.Instead of just using him as mastery fodder, maybe try playing Loki once in a while.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:you can try and dismiss others for wanting nerfs for the sake of nerfs but if you would actually put your bias aside and read through the posts again you will realize why Loki is a problem for balance going forth.
Actually I see a majority of people saying he is fine. He does not have a balance issue as the enemies themselves are unbalanced as it is. All you and the others have provided are trivial little nitpicks without any real ground, like the nukeframe arguments. All you have done in your replies is try and turn the tables onto me, ignored the points I made and not providing any evidence to your viewpoint. You believe Loki taking weapons away can be viewed the same way a nuke ability is, which is laughable at the very least.
If you really want to call me biased then fine, whatever makes you happy. I'm biased against unnecessary nerfs. Reply after reply all you have done is just brush of every point I made and subsequently undermined yourself again and again.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:and if you really want tn continue with this ''benefit'' argument then I raise you zephyr and mesa, you using disarm put me at a disadvantage when the enemies manage to get close, so as a matter of fact you remove my ''fun'' by disarming the entire bloody map because my ability is now useless
Are you seriously joking? That's your smoking gun? I'm sorry but that is such a petty and nitpicky reason. So just because Loki makes the Shooting Gallery and Turbulence less necessary that somehow means your other abilities don't work? You can't have fun with them? In fact I'd say Disarm allows you to have more fun as you can gather them up in groups or in the case of the augment, make them gather into groups and fight eachother, thereby giving your Peacemaker a whole bunch of targets in the one whole group, and allowing enemies to run straight into your Tornados like a pack of headless chickens.
In fact I'm not surprised you pulled such a petty little reason out of your hat.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:You see any strawman argument can easily be turned against another.
Actually the only one who is grasping at straws here is you my friend. Not answering any of my questions directly save one, which was the most petty and nitpicky answer I've ever heard. You consistently failed to provide me with adequate evidence that Loki desperately needs a nerf, instead opting to try and brush everything off or turn my questions back at me, which failed.
If you look back through the thread you will see that the majority of people say Loki is is perfectly balanced and nerfing him makes no sense. Same goes with Youtube videos and generally most of the in-game players share this view. You are the minority and you have just proved that the people in that area do not have any real argument. Just nitpicks and petty remarks.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:But it's fine because I'm done with this discussion because this is like talking to a fanboy and trying to convince them the product they're a fan of has problems, in the end they will ignore what you say and their blind fanboyism and bias will reign supreme.
Someone who is so strongly convinced that they are in the right, does not just leave. You have offered nothing substantial at all. You'll be back once you've read this.
-
1 hour ago, Omnipower said:
Lol wat...avenging the orokin? XD
Sorry i must of misread that considering the lore is we pretty much obliterated the orokin(99% of them) ourselves during some weird ceremony or celebration in our supposed repulsion of the sentients during the war.
PS to add on lotus is neither good nor evil she is only trying to protect her children(tenno) since she cant have any of her own. Also she is trying to actually give us purpose as without the orokin we would be no different than the grineer or a bunch of mercenaries(which can be argued that we are anyways). Or we would just be exploited again for some factions end goal whether it was the syndicates or the corpus or the grineer or some random alcove of ppl that manage to silver tongue us into their cause/benefit.
I think at least a few of the Orokin are still alive. The Queens are Orokin after all. I think we're going to encounter Ballas in the next quest.
-
27 minutes ago, AuroraSonicBoom said:
Easy. 3 of his 4 abilities scale indefinitely, which is the main culprit of bad game balance.
Decoy is useless at high levels.
Also, abilities that scale are the best abilities in this game. Until DE fix the broken enemy scaling (which I personally believe will not happen for a very long time if ever) abilities that scale like the enemies are the things that save the game from being completely unbalanced. Fight fire with fire as it were.
Vauban scales indefinitely, Nyx scales indefinitely. Nidus and Chroma scale not indefinitely but incredibly well.
27 minutes ago, AuroraSonicBoom said:Disarm also suffers from the fact that it has way too few things affecting its effect on enemies, leading to the logical conclusion that more balance elements need to be added to the ability in order to allow limit its scaling.
See this is he thing I don't get about people. Why do you want to nerf something that scales with the enviornment? Why don't you instead concentrate on the scaling of the enemies. Then a nerf to Loki would seem at least a little coherent.
27 minutes ago, AuroraSonicBoom said:I'm not really a fan of just giving the disarm a time limit because that doesn't add any interesting new gameplay, but rather making the enemy physically drop their weapons and have power strength affect how far Disarm flings away their weapons. The AI would then have to decide whether to attack with their melee or - if a weapon they're trained in using(aka the type that belongs to them) is close enough, charge for it instead.
Power strength has never been Loki's forte. Making his fourth reliant on that would mean people would have to sacrifice a lot of range, thus making the ability a little useless since it would only affect those directly in his vicinity.
The enemy scaling is the problem here ultimately.
-
Just now, cghawk said:
those CC enemies in significantly smaller radius and have limitations attached to them.
Not really, you can max out range on them and they can reach basically the same level of RD. Also they don't have significant limitations at all.
2 minutes ago, cghawk said:The fact of the matter is melee won't hit loki because loki has invisibility,
There we go, presuming every single Loki player is aware of every single enemy around them and can dodge every melee swing perfectly. What about enemies that are behind you and then you decloak and bam. Dead. Or perhaps an enemy who didn't get disarmed is shooting at the ones who are irradiated and you happen to be in the way. Scenarios.
4 minutes ago, cghawk said:you said SIGNIFICANTLY more tanky, and that is not true, is nova more tanky than loki? yes.
Don't try and backtrack on your statements by making it seem like you didn't understand what I meant. You said Nova was less tanky than Lok. You were wrong.
4 minutes ago, cghawk said:healthy nerfs are those that balance the game, regardless of whether or not they benefit the squad
Um, no. Loki is perfectly balanced right now, so nerfing him serves no benefit to gameplay whatsoever, thus becoming detrimental to overall gameplay balance. Also, you seem to be consistently ignoring the fact that Loki is very weak and enemies do attack you, intentionally and unintentionally. This is extremely apparent when you use the augment Irradiating Disarm. Other enemies unaffected by your first cast will attack the irradiated enemies and if you happen to be in the way well then you go down immediately.
A Loki nerf literally serves nothing. All you doing is actually making him less efficient for dealing with high level enemies, thus tipping the balance in favour of the enviornment. I don't know about you, but that definitely sounds like an unbalance to me. As I demonstrated beforehand with Vacuum, players do get to have a say in what they view as good for the game and what is not. We are at the end of the day, DE's customers and the customer is always right.
9 minutes ago, cghawk said:you said it makes playstyle the same but how? just because disarm, MP and polarize spread their effects the same way makes in no way play styles the same.
It does because they function the same, but affect enemies differently. You also have to run around like a lemon waiting for the whole room to eventually be disarmed/primed/polarised instead of just being disarmed instantly.
12 minutes ago, cghawk said:your arguments are biased and therefore not rational
You can keep saying that but at the end of the day you still haven't provided any good answers that would make me realistically think you have a good cause to nerf Loki.
14 minutes ago, cghawk said:you come up with this straw man argument all the time of ''but it most benefit the squad'' or ''but how will this help loki'' spoiler, nerfs aren't supposed to help you, shocking I know!
Actually nerfs are supposed to help. Mesa's Peacemaker was nerfed because it was a "press 4 to win" and didn't allow other players to enjoy the game. Synoid Gammacor was nerfed because it practically replaced every other weapon in the game. Limbo was nerfed because he could nuke everything etc etc. All of the major nerfs have benefitted the game in some way. The unnecessary ones that absolutely no one asked for, have never ever been welcomed.
A nerf has to be good in some way otherwise it's just makes the game less fun for everyone, thus making the game less enticing to play. Why would anyone want to play this game if DE just drop random nerf bombs that were not legitimately needed, for no reason?
17 minutes ago, cghawk said:of coruse there aren't upsides to it, that's why it's called a nerf, otherwise it would be called a buff, seems fairly obvious to me.
You really just seem to be one of the people who just nerf for the sake of nerf. No benefits at all. You just like seeing stuff get nerfed. There has to be a good reason for something to be looked at otherwise it's serves no purpose. Why would you try and fix something that isn't broken. I think you need to re-evaluate what a nerf is supposed to be.
20 minutes ago, cghawk said:MP never nuked the entire map into oblivion, you still had to shoot the enemies, something everyone could and still can participate in.
Every time she MP'ed, the entire map would be Primed and a speck of dust would set it off. Meaning that only one player would kill all the enemies. Are we really going to go this deep?
22 minutes ago, cghawk said:your argument could be used for nova as well, ''she is very squishy and relies solely on her ability to survive and does not take away fun from others''
She used to, by nuking the entire map. She is now in a good place and does not need any more major changes.
23 minutes ago, cghawk said:fun is subjective, so saying loki does not take away fun is your subjective opinion, for all we know millions may disagree with that
Really? Then please do point me to a person who says that Loki making high level enemies easier to deal with, is not fun. I've never ever heard anyone stupid enough to say that Loki makes the game less fun because he takes away an enemies ability to one shot you or revive an ally quite easily.
25 minutes ago, cghawk said:a nerf exists to take away benefits,
And at the same time add new ones. Like I said, all the nerfs in previous times have benefited the game in some way.
27 minutes ago, cghawk said:it's sole reason is to take away power, not ad power, so the ''doesn't benefit'' argument is entirely irrelevant,
Wrong. A nerf does need to benefit people in some way otherwise it gets shoved back in DE's face (Vacuum reference again). I've already explained how the previous legitimate nerfs helped other players, but this Loki suggestion is just entirely unprovoked. Please don't act like the doesn't benefit argument is not relevant because it is.
29 minutes ago, cghawk said:If anything you saying it doesn't benefit loki is good,
Actually it's not because Loki is perfectly balanced and making him less useful means that people will not use him, thus eliminating another unique frame and make everyone go follow another meta, which is not what DE wants. You do not need to fix what isn't broken. You have the attitude that Loki is the godframe, when he really is not.
32 minutes ago, cghawk said:nerfs are done to balance the game, not to satisfy your feelings on a particular frame or weapon
And by nerfing Loki, you make the game unbalanced because the enemies are now even more powerful and a pain to deal with. Scaling is already broken, so I think complaining about CC balance is laughable in the first place.
You have provided zero satisfying answers. All you have done is advocate nerfing for the sake of nerfing while failing to give an answer as to how this would balance an already broken scaling system that heavily punishes players already. Please re-evaluate your stance on buffs and nerfs and give me a proper answer next time.
19 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:I'm actually an inaros main. And I've seen that the only way he gets by is by lifestealing the health back, if he doesn't charge ulti or use his abilities he is easy to down.
And when you do use those abilities correctly, he's practically unkillable. Thus making your argument irrelevant.
20 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:but his damage is not as bloated as compared to loki's
Loki does no damage.
20 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:that's true. but loki's invisibility has the advantage of not letting them shoot you in the first place in a single button press.
So does Inaros, Mesa, Equinox, Ivara, Vauban, Nyx, Hydriod, Nidus, Excalibur. In fact I'd say every frame in the game has an ability that stops enemies shooting at you for a time. Shall we nerf every single one so enemies can always shoot at you?
22 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:decoy lets them shoot the decoy. ultimate prevents them from even attacking you
Decoy dies in two hits (one if beyond level 20) and enemies will still shoot you if you are closer then the decoy.
23 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:those are damage increasing abilities, not survivability boosters.
Making enemies slower does not increase survivability? Okay, come back to me with a real reply please.
24 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:i've seen people with 2khours and every frame maxed who put nekros titania and oberon as the best warframes in the entire game.
So shall we nerf them too?
25 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:he isn't but you failed to raise up the reason.
Definition of Tank:
A tank (also known as a meat shield) is a style of character in gaming, often associated with a character class. A common convention in real-time strategy games, role-playing games, fighting games, multiplayer online battle arenas and MUDs, tanks redirect enemy attacks or attention toward themselves in order to protect other characters or units. Since this role often requires them to suffer large amounts of damage, they rely on large amounts of vitality or armor, healing by other party members, evasiveness and misdirection, or self regeneration.
Tanks are often represented as large or heavily armored.
Loki does not do the following:
1. Attract enemy attention to himself.
2. Do well against damage.
3. Has a large amount of vitality and armour.
Loki is not a tank. He is traditionally put into the assassin class. That reason enough for you?
28 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:loki ain't tank because he doesn't resist anything, but he performs their role better since he can attract attention, never die, debuff and CC everything, and still move faster.
Loki does not attract attention as he dies immediately if he does. His goal is to stay out of the direct battlefield and use his CC to survive. Tanks are the ones who attract attention as they traditionally can soak up damage, as evidenced above. Most assassins in MMO style games do more damage because they have bonus critical damage applied. But they are riskier to play as they are very fragile. Loki fits this profile perfectly. He is not a tank. Stop acting like he is.
31 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:tf2 is a go-to for balance in any shooter game because of this fact: tf2 has every playstyle around expressed in one way or another and is universally recognized. you can translate "heavy weapons guy playstyle" into any existing shooter. dead ringer spy is there because it is incredibly cheesey, allows you to escape any situation unharmed.
As the gentlemen before me said, TF2 is a completely different game. Comparing it to Warframe is illogical and does not help your argument at all.
32 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:if i claim to have any skill in this game at all, i cannot ever touch loki. if i claim to have any individuality and uniqueness of personality, i must never play loki.
Pointless end to your post is pointless.
22 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:So what ? You argued MP gives better survivability, that's not true.
Slowing enemies down and going invisible do have the same amount of survivability in may eyes, or are at least very close to each other. Nuking an entire room to slow-mo gives you plenty of time to spot distant enemies who don't even have their gun raised yet. Warframes are highly mobile, so outrunning slow enemies shouldn't be a problem. Remember this is all scenario based. We can each make our own cases for how and why each ability is better than another, so this is kind of a slippery slope.
25 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:We are comparing current MP with current RD : what justifies a wave for MP and an instant for RD ?
The fact that an instant MP would mean instant death for every enemy in the map. Instant RD means instant disarm, not death. It doesn't provide a damage multiplier or a slow effect of up to 75%. That is why a wave is justified for MP and not RD. An instant MP is the definition of unbalanced.
27 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:Your argument was "MP nukes", yet it doesn't, it deals litteraly 0 damage when you cast it. Even when they changed it to a wave it didn't do that.
It nukes because it allows you to shoot enemies once and the whole platoon goes up in smoke. At the start, a speck of dust would destroy armies of Grineer if they were Primed.
29 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:Loki deals more damage when he presses his button.
He does 500 impact damage at max rank. That has about as much effect on enemies as a warm summer breeze kissing the face of a cheerful baby. Acting like Loki has significant damage is illogical.
32 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:MP deals a lot more when somone activates the chain reaction, it's a delayed nuke, not "as soon &#! you press the button". The "nuke" argument isn't valid, and there are abilities that you REALLY may call nuke that don't work with a wave.
The nuke argument was valid at the start, no matter how much you go "Oh well you still had to do something". One enemy killed and poof, the rest follow all over the map no matter where they were. Instantaneous death i.e; Nuke.
33 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:The fact is, either MP or RD, making it a wave make the ability a bit less useful. Why RD coudn't be a wave if Nova has one ?
Because RD doesn't take away the opportunity to play the game from other players, like how the old MP did, along with the other Nuke abilities.
35 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:That's what a nerf does most of the times. MP being a wave didn't benefit anyone since the affinity attribution for the kills was changed before that.
You seem to think that the only reason people kill in this game is for affinity. If that's the case, then why were all the nuke frames nerfed. They all gave shared affinity, yet they were nerfed. People want to be able to shoot and kill before a nuke wipes everything out. That is why MP was changed to a wave, Saryn's Miasma was changed, Mesa's Peacemaker was changed, Limbo's nuke mode was changed, Excalibur's Javelin was changed. Examples everywhere.
37 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:I'm comparing MP to either : a real nuke, WoF, that's instant AoE or a CC that can nuke.
Does it kill everything on the map no matter where it is? Nope. Ever played Black Ops Zombies? Remember the nuke powerup? That is what I define a "nuke".
38 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:ou argued that "MP kills everything in a room before you can play", both WoF and SQ do that
Incorrect. As I just said, WoF doesn't kill everything on the entire map. In high level missions, it also acts more like a CC ability as enemies don't die instantly like they do in the star map. SQ I also said requires an augment to be viable to do good damage and has a huge energy drain attached to it. It's mostly modded for CC these days. Also, does it kill everything on the entire map? No.
42 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:RD could be a wave too. And again, a nerf doesn't benefit a squad, that's the point of a nerf so that way of thinking is invalid.
You guys seriously need to look back on some of the major nerfs and tell me that none of them benefitted the squad in some way. I guarantee you that you will not find a nerf that people didn't ask for still in the game. I keep bringing up Vacuum as an example of this. It's like I need to remind everyone that we in fact have the ultimate say in what we like in this game and what we think is unreasonable. There is a reason DE have a design council, there is a reason they are so vocal about changes (most of the time) with players. Our approval means quite a lot to them in case you didn't know.
45 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:You are biased because you think the "wave nerf" was appropriate for Mag and Nova and woudn't be for Loki, that's the exact same boat.
Oberon and Mag are my two most used frames in the game. I can tell you right now that I am not biased against these frames. I believe that the waves were appropriate for them as they nuked everything and took the fun out of the game. I'll remind you again, Loki does not nuke all enemies. Keep ignoring that if you want, but the main point still stands; Loki, Mag and Nova are completely different scenarios.
47 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:The nerf hinder squad either way. Yet you think the Mag and Nova nerf were normal and Loki wouldn't be. That's a bias, either against those two or in favor of Loki.
You really don't seem to get that just because someone is against a nerf, that doesn't mean they're biased. It's a very immature way of looking at things. Everything is either black or white to you. I do not like nerfs that serve no other purpose than "Oh it's just a nerf". Apparently it's a crime to want a nerf to actually do something other than just be a nerf. I'll keep pointing at Vacuum until you guys get the point.
51 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:The answer to your question is in the disclaimer of the OP. The topic isn't there asking for a nerf but more a "IF Loki were still king of Endless survival, how WOULD you nerf it".
A question which relates directly to how would this help the game. Questions you have repeatedly brushed aside by talking about other things instead. Please provide us a straight answer how nerfing Loki would be substantially beneficial to gameplay in any way. Would it make the game more fun to play? Would it make squad play more rewarding? Answer the question.
Someone already provided a good answer as well. It's not Loki that's the problem, it's the environment. Make the AI smarter. Evert nerf to stealth is a nerf to Loki. His kit is fine, nerf the environment he thrives in. Sometimes, just sometimes it's not the frame that needs tweaking. Think about that for a minute.
54 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:With this if, a wave for RD is a realistic nerf, consistent with other nerf DE did, and you failed to argue why it coudn't be possible.
Never said a nerf couldn't be possible. I said there is literally no reason for it, seeing as how he is in a perfect place now. Loki is balanced. Everyone, their dog nd their dogs squeeky toy agrees with that. Only the minority who have a fetish for nerfs see this as necessary. None of the people in favour have provided adequate and sensible arguments for a Loki nerf and have just said "Oh a nerf isn't meant to benefit anyone", which is entirely false in every sense of the word.
(Phew)
Long post.
-
Just now, PrVonTuckIII said:
Otherwise, I think Invis just needs a mechanics change, because as of now, it's practically god-mode + stealth mode + extra melee damage (admittedly, this is more a problem with stealth mechanics in general, not just Loki).
The best tweak suggestion I've seen thus far is buffing the enemy AI so they react how a normal person would if they felt something invisible nudge past them or saw a muzzle flash in mid air. I honestly can't see how you can change invisibility itself anymore without making it useless though. Perhaps I'm not creative enough, but no one here seems to be able to solve that conundrum either.
-
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:
Doesn't make up for Invisibility, Disarm and sometimes the Disarm's augment which adds a Rad proc.
Yes, both Loki and Nova have useful augments. Also I think applying a damage multiplier, slowing down enemies and being able to nuke all other enemies by killing one, matches up with Loki's kit.
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:Radial Disarms nukes more by itself than MP, MP needs an activator for a chain reaction.
Nuke as in kill every single enemy as soon as you press the button. Molecular Prime used to do that. Loki never did and will never do that. He takes away weapons. There is no way you could tinker with that without making it less useful.
Also what does the chain reaction have to do with anything? It used to be that Nova just pressed a button and everyone died, now people can just shoot enemies and be the one who starts the chain reaction. I don't see your point.
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:That's full of BS. Of course there is no upside to making radial disarm an expanding wave, that's the point of a nerf.
Nerfing an ability that does nothing but benefit every member of the squad, makes zero sense and should not be done. Nerfing has to be beneficial to some measure of gameplay. What would nerfing Disarm do for anyone?
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:MP doesn't nuke by itself once again, and MP is used in a way that it most of the times don't matter since you can debuff at spawns,
Molecular Prime applies slow effect, has a damage multiplier and can be spammed indefinitely.
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:Ember WoF, Banshee SQ and things like that are much more nuky, yet it doesn't travel, your arguments are pointless.
You are trying to put CC and Damage in the same basket. WoF and SQ are two very different abilities. The former is mostly built for damage while the latter is built for CC. SQ is not a nuke ability as you have to invest heavily in efficiency, duration and strength plus the augment for it be viable for nuking and even then it takes a massive amount of energy. Comparing WoF and SQ is pointless. My arguments are not pointless as they all use the same logic of; what benefits would a quad gain from nerfing Loki?
This is not like the Ash scenario where he could just make enemies invincible and lock down an entire army with Bladestorm.
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:You are and your whole speech is.
Again, I'm being rational. Just because I speak in favour of Loki not being nerfed does not mean I'm biased, I simply see no long term or short term benefit that can come of it for a squad. For me, nerfs need to be a benefit to the team in some way. I see no way at all how this can be beneficial. That is not being biased at all. I'm simply asking "Why do you want this and how will it benefit people if it happens?"
So far, no one has provided me with a real answer.
34 minutes ago, Aranaevens said:First the thread wasn't about suggesting to nerf Loki but debate how he could be, that's a difference.
Loki is a perfectly balanced frame in many peoplss eyes. Creating a thread asking how they could nerf him inevitably brings this sort of discussion where there are some people in favour of nerfs and others aren't. Difference is with this thread however, is that no one can provide clear rational reasons as how nerfing Loki would be good and some sensible people have suggested that maybe it's not the frame thats the problem but the environment.
Read through and you'll see the suggestion that enemies act more realistically to invisible Loki's. That is a far more sensible solution. Nerfing Loki himself instead of buffing the enemies AI, doesn't benefit anyone at all.
-
Just now, ALEX_IV said:
I don't understand the point of this post.
Why talk about something that yourself do not condone in your disclaimer? It's just a waste of time.
And btw, Loki is a very balanced frame. Talking about nerfing him doesn't make sense at all.
I think it's because that DE said every frame was due for a rework at some point and it seems that Loki is the one of everyone's minds atm. I really don't want DE to feel like they have to rework every frame though. Why fix what isn't broken.
If Loki had the stats of Valkyr, plus his powers, then yes I'd say he needs a nerf to his survivability, but he doesn't.
Instead DE could you maybe spend more time on Oberon please.
-
7 minutes ago, Hypernaut1 said:
This is all that needs to happen. Improve the way enemies react to cloaked frames.
It would help balance naramon too.
2 birds with one stone
This is something I could get behind. Don't nerf Loki, buff the enemy AI. It's quite amazing that some people always think it's the frame that needs work when sometimes, it's the environment.
-
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:
frames aren't tanky because they resist damage,
I take it you've never run an Ice Chroma, Inaros, Nidus, or any tank frame at all then?
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:even our actual tanks get shot down quite quickly,
No they don't. Unless of course you're encountering lvl150+ enemies, which by that point any frame becomes as fragile as a glass tea-towel.
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:loki has four abilities to avoid damage
Not really. Invisibility is the only true thing that takes enemies attention off him entirely. The others don't make enemies stop attacking him.
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:nova has only an unreliable teleport and a questionably useful 1st ability, both of which miles below loki's survivability skills
Nova has Molecular Prime and Antimatter drop. The augment for the latter also mean that it absorbs incoming fire. Also the teleport is more of a gimmick on both frames, apart from the fact that Nova's is slightly more useful since it doesn't require you to pick a target to teleport too.
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:to everyone saying "oh loki is squishy", you're dead wrong.
No we're not. Statistics and game-play experience speaks for itself.
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:loki is arguably as tanky as rhino because he can avoid damage with every one of his abilities and stats.
I'm sorry but you're just not making any sense right now. The only ability that allows him to truly avoid intentional damage is invisibility. This is the scenario thing again where people try and make the thing they want nerfed look OP. Comparing his stats to Rhino is also not a very clever point as Rhino is a tank. Loki is not.
41 minutes ago, ALOEDA1 said:it's like in tf2, a dead ringer spy is ridiculously hard to kill because they always have a speed boost, a fake corpse, and instant invisibility active whenever they walk into combat.
TF2 and Warframe are two completely different games with two completely different playstyles. This is an irrelevant point.
Please, if Loki is such a burden on other people, list out the advantages a group would get by having Loki nerfed. I'm interested to see what genuine benefits you think this would bring. A nerf has to be substantially beneficial, otherwise it's like the Vacuum nerf i.e; completely unnecessary.
-
1 hour ago, cghawk said:
you pres 4 and enemies are no longer a threat,
That's entirely not true.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:then any other CC and easy pick-offs,
So should we nerf Vaubans Bastille? Ivara and Equinoxs sleep powers? Mesa's Shooting Gallery? All of these powers trivialise enemies, with the latter-most being mechanically similar to Radial Disarm, except being duration based. CC is king in this game and tends to trivialise content.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:you're fast enough to not get hit by their melee etc etc. who is to say it's balanced? it doesn't look balanced to me.
What you're doing right now is assuming that every single enemy can't hit a Loki at melee. You present a specific situation in which you make Loki seem OP. I can do that with any frame I want. Put a Nova with a frost who has Ice Wave Impedance equipped, hide behind his globe = easy pickings all day. Or Inaros locking down entire hallways with his Scarab Swarm.
Making any frame look OP is easy given the right scenario.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:significantly? so you call 75 shields and no stealth ''significantly'' more tanky? not even close I call that slightly more tanky with less survivability.
No I call having more health more tanky. You also seem to forget that she can slow enemies down by 75%.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:of course it would reduce him in the eyes of players, that's what a nerf does, if we don't want a frame or weapon to reduce them in the eyes of the users then that means we can never nerf anything.
Difference is my friend, is that Loki is in a good place and does not require a nerf. Only to the small minority like you he does, and thats only because you're looking at him on paper and haven't actually played him in a variety of different scenarios for a long time. He is very useful, but very physically weak. Nova and Loki's mains compensate for them and are their saving grace. Without them, they're pretty much useless. Loki has his playstyle, Nova has hers. Not every AOE ability needs to be an expanding wave like you think it does. That just reduces the frames individuality and makes their playstyle more or less the same. Healthy nerfs are ones that actually benefit the squad as a whole. Sayrn's Miasma, Nova's MP and Mag's Polarise all one-shotted enemies at some point, taking away fun from the rest of the squad who barely got a kill in. Loki's disarm does not nuke enemies but rather makes them less likely to one-shot your frame from two blocks away. Unless you derive pleasure from being shot, I don't see how this can be put on the same level as "press 4 to nuke enemies" abilities.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:meanwhile nova doesn't have invisibility so the chances of ANYTHING hitting her are significantly higher and that 75 shield isn't going to make a darn difference once you get past lvl 10.
You seem to forget that we have a modding system and she has Molecular Prime.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:you're simply being biased, you say you prefer a instantaneous disarm, hell I prefer a instant MP and instant Polarize, doesn't mean DE wants me to have it
Yes, because you had it once before and it was completely OP. Nuking enemies instantaneously is not what DE want players to be doing. I'm not being biased, I'm being rational. Loki's abilities are entirely CC based, not damage based. CC as a whole benefits everyone. You cannot say a Loki is not useful to a squad because that is not true. He doesn't take any fun away from other players like some previous nuke frames did.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:a slowly expanding disarm has it's downsides and upsides
There are literally no upsides to making radial disarm an expanding wave, at all. The only difference is that it makes it less useful than it was before. Yea sure nuke-frame enthusiasts can say that MP is less effective than it was before, but the difference is that before it only benefited them and made other players bored since everything was nuked. Loki does not do that.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:no one would be happy if a frame or weapon they used gets nerfed so that argument is irrelevant
Actually no it isn't. Unnecessary nerfs are not welcomed by the community, as demonstrated when they released universal vacuum but cut the range down to like one third of it's original range. Some people stood for it (for whatever crazy reason) while the majority shoved it right back and rightfully proclaimed the nerf unnecessary. DE then rectified their mistake and made it the same range again. Sometimes nerfs are really not good for anyone.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:no one was happy when MP got nerfed, no one was happy when Polarize was nerfed
Actually, quite a lot of people were happy when that happened, as they could now kill things and you know start playing the game.
1 hour ago, cghawk said:DE deemed them balance issues while others did not, it may be the same case with disarm
They were balance issues because they removed virtually every enemy from the map and stopped other players from having fun. Loki is perfectly balanced because he is very squishy and has to rely solely on his abilities to survive and does not take away fun from others. You seem to use the same logic as those who say Banshee needs a nerf. This is just nerfing for the sake of nerfing as nothing good will come out of it for anyone.
-
Just now, cghawk said:
polarize and mp also used to be instantaneous, doesn't mean it can't be changed.
DIfference is that they used to be "press 4 to win" abilities. Radial Disarm is not one of those as it does not nuke all enemies on the map. It's called balance. Loki does not need a change, which is something that you don't recognise.
2 minutes ago, cghawk said:same goes for nova, running over the place with orb and wormhole while dying as soon as a enemy even looks at her funny yet mp was given a delay anyways.
Nova is significantly more tanky than a Loki. She is not on the same level of squish as he is. Also in high level missions a lot of frames go down from a single bombard rocket, save from really tanky frames. Loki just goes down significantly faster.
4 minutes ago, cghawk said:obviously it wouldn't benefit him, otherwise it wouldn't be called nerf,
Yea and thats why we don't need a nerf. It would reduce him in the eyes of players.
5 minutes ago, cghawk said:there is no need to make him tanky, especially when loki already got significantly more survivability than nova in the form of invisibility
You obviously don't play Loki as much, or you would know that status effects, AOE attacks and the occasional stray bullet can still catch an invisible Loki. He's only invisible, not invincible. That is the problem many people have with Loki when they ask for a survivability buff.
A Loki nerf is entirely unnecessary and does not help anyone, be it Loki players and non-Loki players. I know I'd prefer an instantaneous disarm Loki on my team so they can get us out of a hairy situation if needs be. Slowly expanding disarm would detrimental to both the team and the Loki player.
-
5 minutes ago, cghawk said:
same goes for MP and polarize but hey DE did it anyways so following that logic disarm would make sense as it as well, hell it even makes sense description wise:
Thats not how it works. Not all abilities have to be made a duration based slow expanding wave. Especially Radial Disarm since it makes it less effective.
5 minutes ago, cghawk said:''Lets forth a wave of energy'' so if anything it should work like PM and Polarize
No it should not work like that at all. It's an instantaneous wave of energy that you see when you cast Disarm. Loki is a fast paced frame with very low direct survivability. He is not Nova, or Mag. This change would not benefit him at all unless he became seriously tanky, which will never happen. Terrible idea.
-
2 minutes ago, (PS4)robotwars7 said:
if anything, I think the people who play as loki are needing a buff more than anything, it's very rare I come across a decent Loki player.
I don't think he needs a buff. He just requires a bit more caution to play. People going down while playing him is due to human error.
-
9 minutes ago, cghawk said:
reckon his disarm deserves the same treatment as molecular prime, polarize and other such abilities, no longer instant and travels in a expanding wave
No. Just no. Having Disarm travel out in a wave is a terrible idea.
-
I think I'll quote Benjamin "Yhatzee" Croshaw on this situation; "How is it when you see something that works perfectly well, you immediately decide to try and improve it and @#&$ the whole thing up."
This is quote sums up my thoughts on a Loki nerf as well as a few unnecessary past nerfs. Loki is the epitome of balance in the game. He is very powerful, but also incredibly squishy and can be downed quite quickly if not careful in high level missions. If you don't keep spamming invisibility and disarm, you will die. People saying that he needs his invisibility cut in half and disarm should be affected by power strength, need to learn that this doesn't improve Loki, it dooms him to forever haunt the back of our liset gathering dust along with the Synoid Gammacor, Flux Rifle and all the other past items that used to be good but are now regarded as rubbish.
Loki really doesn't need a change at all. He's perfect the way he is. If anything I want DE to focus more on Oberon.
-
10 hours ago, Eureka.seveN said:
If you complain about the game show that you actually have something better of good quality to put on the table
Why should they if people keep saying "leave it to the real artists". You think Tennogen artist all started out as experts who could make fantastic skins from the start? No.
-
-
2 minutes ago, DualParadox said:
If you "nerf" her powers how will you survive? Talking to the grineer and corpus? "Sorry guys, don't mind me, just passing by. Going to sabotage your reactors." *snow flake mode: on* Her powers are her survivability.
I was about to say that but you beat me to it +1
Take away her powers, you take away the only thing keeping her alive.
-
Lacera Prime, or some kind of Prime sword & whip anyway.
If it were possible, Sonicor Prime.
-
Tempo Royale and Final Harbinger. Both are very fast and cover a lot of ground. Plus they make you look totally badass.
-
12 hours ago, Miser_able said:
Did the forums bug out for me then? When I checked his profile it said he had been here for years.
No I'm seeing it too.
How could DE possibly nerf Loki?
in General Discussion
Posted
I've read everyone's posts perfectly well and no one has provided any significant benefits to this nerf. All the scenario rubbish and petty nitpicks do count as real evidence or reasons.
Now, answer the question you have repeatedly shoved aside by asking me questions. I want you to list out a bunch of genuine benefits that the game would receive by nerfing Loki. Not an overly long dramatic post about how you say a Loki stay invisible the whole mission and everyone else died, a small numbered list consisting of one sentence that details the benefits. Answer it.