Jump to content

DiabolusUrsus

PC Member
  • Content Count

    4,706
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

12,828

5 Followers

About DiabolusUrsus

  • Rank
    Gold Eagle

Recent Profile Visitors

10,394 profile views
  1. Wait, so do you mean thaw it or freeze it?
  2. Finally tried this fight out today, and I have to say that despite some huge, glaring flaws, I was pleasantly surprised. The Bad Bosses built on jumping through hoops are, IMO, never fun in games requiring players to grind them repeatedly. They quickly become a matter of going through the motions, and what may have been novel the first few runs is inevitably reduced to tedium that makes players not want to go back. Ever. Using parkour cables to navigate the boss arena? Neat. Cables that run in the most unimaginative directions possible? Snore. Timed jumping puzzles while running on said cables? Groan. I am against OHKO attacks as a matter of principle. The infrequent use and reasonable telegraph help prevent it from being a complete dealbreaker on this fight, but I don't think "you messed up once, you are dead" is ever particularly compelling to the player in a game like Warframe. I Wanna be the Guy? Super Meat Boy? Okay fine, because the game is built around those and pretty much everything is OHKO. But in Warframe? Nah. It's not "challenge," it's just "difficulty." And by itself, that only causes annoyance/frustration rather than fulfillment. This might just be me, but I absolutely detest boss fights where the player must use the environment directly to damage the boss. It is a recipe for instant destruction of the power fantasy Warframe sells itself on. One thought instantly sticks in my mind: how would we beat it if we fought it somewhere else? I dislike Kuva Guardians and Eidolons for the same reason. These things would have absolutely destroyed us before finishing TSD/TWW, so how the heck are we supposed to believe we won the Old War... and why didn't the Grineer just crush us early on with a few dedicated shock troops? We would have been helpless! Big 'ol Natah transmissions, but other posters have covered those in-depth already. It can be really awkward to get in range of grabbing the damn thing on occasion. The Good I appreciated that the staple "homing missile spam" of what seems like every damn Warframe boss is toned down somewhat. I was delighted to see that the Sentient shields were nowhere near as spongy as those of its POE siblings. Smashing it into the charged towers is honestly pretty funny. I don't actually see that getting old (though perhaps shorten the delay before it actually becomes steerable), though I would prefer this as one optional strategy of many (tying back into my point about power fantasy). The Amazing My absolute favorite part of this fight is that the boss becomes vulnerable to melee during stage 3 and that it's big enough for me to climb on top of and commence the slice-and-dice. The most efficient method? Nah. But more fun than just wiping the thing with guns for the nth time, IMO. More bosses that support both gunplay and melee, please. EDIT: THE DISAPPOINTING Welp, went back and tried it solo... and at that point the OHKO lasers were just bleeding annoying. Easy enough to avoid on their own, but the damn thing fires them off so fast that once your pet goes down you can't pick it back up again without it getting nuked immediately after. Void Mode is the only safe way to revive, and that means the boss is just constantly targeting your pet. Can I take a sentinel? Sure, Carrier Prime works fine. But c'mon.
  3. Counter-arguing is not ranting. Dismissing invalid arguments is par for the course in any reasonable debate. Bring valid arguments, and you will get counter-arguments instead of dismissals. But you actually have to bring valid arguments first. Guess what? They're not special. We've been over this before. I also have a job and limited play time. I am also affected by time-limited deadlines. But if I want to rush to that extreme, I have the decency to either handle it on my own or gather a group of like-minded people working toward a common goal. Why is your time worth more than my time? Dismissing weak excuses for hurting other players' game experiences is definitely better than acquiescing to them. I saw your suggestions, and all they show is that you're not willing to engage in goodwill discussion on the point. Your "suggestion" requires sticking your head in the sand and refusing to acknowledge that there is a problem. You're reduced to suggesting that the handful of enemies not nuked instantly is enough to keep 3 players occupied. Spoiler alert: they're not. If there weren't a problem, people would not be complaining about it. And once again, you're reduced to a lame strawman aimed at exaggerating the standard for participation into something unreasonable. Getting to fight a Nox or Heavy Gunner every wave or so after the first 5 (remember, 3 other teammates to account for) hardly qualifies as "participating." If you paid any attention at all, you'd know that nerfing DPS/damage output is not quite the same as nerfing damage numbers. My proposed nerfs would target energy economy and Corrupted mods across every Frame in the game, not JUST DPS frames. This would make it so that spammable high-efficiency nuke builds would not inflict enough damage to map wipe (reduced strength, efficiency, range, etc. depending on build) and high-damage nuke builds would require teammate support to sustain. Hydron would be a frame of reference for range limits, as a good example of an overly cramped map exacerbating these issues. Been over this already. It's not an issue in Arbitrations precisely because of those drones. Been over this already, too. Stop ranting and read, and you won't get me dismissing bad points other have already raised. Efficiency in ESO is not a concern. If nuker DPS (and thus kill rate) is reduced, it would be very easy for DE to slow efficiency drain in ESO to compensate. As I said before, this is not rocket science. Yet again, I've been over this already. Can you please stop wasting my time with repeated points and try bringing something new to the table? Ember's nerf was a bad nerf. I have openly acknowledged this every time it has come up, and even pointed out that it utterly failed to fix the problem myself. So no, I would not nerf any Frame based on low level ranges. Instead, I would look for ways to keep too many vets from mixing in with newbies. Perhaps adjusting rewards distributions so that vets have less of a reason to bull-rush low level content. Definitely adjusting solo options for spawn rate so that vets can run low level stuff solo without potentially missing spawns/loot. This is completely irrelevant. Players idling by choice is different from players forced into idling by a complete deconstruction of the gameplay experience. Yes, let's keep broken abilities instead of working to fix bad spawn logic./s I've humored you this time and waded through your slew of disingenuous, fallacy-ridden arguments. I'm not going to waste my time on this drivel again; if you feel that any of your points has been "dismissed," it's because your logic is fatally flawed or otherwise not even an honest argument in the first place.
  4. Are you seriously arguing that players have the right to grief other players? That's very telling. Just like Xepthrichros, you are conflating participation with performance. I am not suggesting that a support Warframe should be able to match a DPS in terms of kills or total damage inflicted. Only that every player should be able to play. Saryn would not magically become less useful in Kuva Survival with somewhat reduced area DPS output; it is already perfectly possible to solo that for an hour. She would still help accelerate kill rate for life support drops. Nonsense. If you have designed a co-op game where only 1 player is needed and 3 aren't even playing, you have designed a bad co-op game. Yes, some players will prefer to take it slow while other will prefer to go faster. It's on the designer to create an environment where either extreme is not overly obtrusive to teammates' experience. The slow end of it is already covered by an extraction timer. The fast end of it just needs to be reined in a bit. That's a lot of words dedicated to nothing of value. Your ME3 example means absolutely nothing to me. It has no logical relevance to the situation at hand - are you saying that there are builds which can kill enemies so fast teammates have nothing to shoot? This circles back to the participation/performance distinction, which all of you seem to be overlooking or purposefully ignoring. This is not about competing for damage or kills. It is about having a minimum degree of engagement to play rather than idle.
  5. Based on everything else you said, you don't have any idea what it is I'm actually saying. You rely entirely on strawmen to dance around the simple statement that every player should actually be able to, y'know, play Warframe. Not idle while someone else plays Warframe. I'm not going to bother addressing anything you say when you can only dodge my counter-points and continue ranting. Because unlike nukes, players cannot force their teammates to play along with any of these. The extraction timer solves this problem for them. The issue is when 1 player can force 3 others to not play. Can you please not repeat bad arguments that have already been addressed? I am one of those players who have limited time to play, and I want to spend that limited time ACTUALLY PLAYING. Why is your time more important than my time? I'm not saying nukes shouldn't exist, I'm just saying they shouldn't be so potentially powerful that they can block 75% of a team from participating. WF has existed for less than 10, so...? Your entire argument here is "Well who knows? Maybe some people don't mind." So what? That doesn't change the simple fact that the basic expectation when playing a video game is that you get to play that video game. If some player can actively block you from playing, that's pretty crappy design. Sorry, but this is just really weak. I never said that players shouldn't be able to play how they want, or that they shouldn't respect each other. I'm saying that nukes should be toned down JUST enough so that every player can actually PLAY. In fact, the idea that you have more of a right to nuke the map than your teammates have to simply play the game is fundamentally failing to respect them as equals.
  6. That's not the point I was making. So now disagreeing with people and debating their points equates to not having character? Huh. Who ought to get help and guidance from more experienced players, not be left even more confused because some vet would rather have them around for better spawns. Again, who ought to get help and guidance from more experienced players. Leeching is bannable. Killing fast is fine. Killing so fast that 3/4 players can't do anything is not fine. And I'm not claiming they shouldn't. Those missions still finish in ~3 minutes with or without a nuker. The difference here is that people going slow can't actually hijack public matches. If they try to kill "slow" the team will simply leave them behind. Neat, how are they relevant? I have literally never seen a player attempt this in public. Again, killing fast is fine. Killing so fast that 3/4 players can't do anything is not fine. Seriously, the only thing you seem to be capable of is making bad-faith arguments that a) don't address the counterpoints I make and b) tell outright lies about what I am saying. Lying doesn't help your cause. Here, this is what I am actually saying, not that you'll bother to read or understand it: The fundamental argument I want to make here is that at the most basic level, every player has an equal right to play, insofar as we have the "right" to do anything in this game. The general expectation is that when you log in and queue up a mission, you play the mission. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to me that the players who are hijacking entire missions are the ones who get to say "well, you just don't get to use public matchmaking then." Public matchmaking is there as a simple tool for playing the game. If players want to agree to a very specific and polarizing strategy like map nuking, that's really what belongs in recruiting chat. If efficiency is really what matters to these players, getting a premade group with carefully picked synergies is going to be infinitely more efficient than a public match. The reality of the situation though, is that these players are not concerned with "efficiency" so much as "convenience." That's why they want to force players who merely want the opportunity to participate out of the public sphere. I actually agree that players have to be willing to tolerate the presence of players they may not agree with or enjoy playing with in public, but I think the game needs to meet the minimum standard that "everybody gets to play."
  7. No, it's pretty certain that the majority of nuking complaints at that time were aimed at Ember. Ember was simply more common in the applicable matches. So if public is the "way the game is meant to be played..." let's force players to abandon public matchmaking because they want the opportunity to actually play the game? Real A+ logic on your part there, pal. Wow. Just... wow.
  8. To be clear, I just wanted to point out the double-standard you were getting into. I didn't take much issue with your discussion of how we got to this point, or why there will be chafing with any real solution. At least when Viver/etc. were still current it was entire teams cooperating to achieve that degree of efficiency. Sure, players sitting around pressing 1 key was dull, but notice that players weren't complaining about nukers stealing all the fun. Not saying that a revert to that point would be good, just that it illustrates players wouldn't be complaining if they at least had something to do toward the common goal. What I was getting at here is the idea that because vets put time and effort into grinding up their gear, that gear is somehow sacred and untouchable because any reduction in efficacy somehow disrespects their "effort" or "investment." I don't think anyone really wants to see nuke frames get nerfed into uselessness, and I wouldn't support anyone who did any more than Then you're really not part of the problem. Notice how nobody is coming in and saying "OMG, this friend I had in a private match was nuking and it just ruined my day!" The fundamental argument I want to make here is that at the most basic level, every player has an equal right to play, insofar as we have the "right" to do anything in this game. The general expectation is that when you log in and queue up a mission, you play the mission. Therefore, it doesn't make much sense to me that the players who are hijacking entire missions are the ones who get to say "well, you just don't get to use public matchmaking then." Public matchmaking is there as a simple tool for playing the game. If players want to agree to a very specific and polarizing strategy like map nuking, that's really what belongs in recruiting chat. If efficiency is really what matters to these players, getting a premade group with carefully picked synergies is going to be infinitely more efficient than a public match. The reality of the situation though, is that these players are not concerned with "efficiency" so much as "convenience." That's why they want to force players who merely want the opportunity to participate out of the public sphere. I actually agree that players have to be willing to tolerate the presence of players they may not agree with or enjoy playing with in public, but I think the game needs to meet the minimum standard that "everybody gets to play." I am also a largely friends-only/solo player who ventures into pubs fairly rarely (mostly for Fissures and topping off those last 2-3 levels on a Forma'd item), so it's not like I'm complaining because I'm raging at nukers with some sort of personal grudge. I just think that it should be fairly obvious that there's an issue here, and that the idea of everyone having the right to participate should be self-evident and beyond debate. Lemme put it this way. Players on both sides of this issue (lemme nuke vs. lemme play) are like kids in the schoolyard. DE is like the teacher. When the nuke side accuses the play side of being "selfish" for complaining and getting things nerfed, they're basically saying "don't be a tattletale." But the thing is, "tattling" isn't going to have any effect unless someone is actually getting wronged by the interaction. If the lemme nuke side isn't actually doing anything wrong, they're not going to get nuked nerfed for it. If a nerf happens, it means the nuke side of it was "wrong." The play side of it isn't at fault for complaining about the problem to get it fixed. This has happened at least twice before, and I expect it will continue to happen until the problem is actually resolved. That's cool, and I agree. I really don't care at all what players choose to do in private matches where everyone is on the same page and having fun. And to be perfectly clear, I don't want to see "nukes" get completely destroyed or anything like that. It's not about removing DPS powers. It's about lowering the bar a little bit so that they can't unilaterally hijack entire multiplayer sessions.
  9. I think you misunderstood me, because that is actually exactly what I was suggesting. Not just nerfs to specific Frames/abilities, but across the board for the entire game. Yes, this is largely what I had in mind. Agreed, though channeled abilities could be further tweaked with regards to initial costs and drain rates. It would also help do develop a larger variety of support type powers driving efficiency, partial refunds, and active recoveries. EDIT: I really appreciate your willingness to work toward a more constructive solution, BTW, so thank you very much for that!
  10. I can play the reductive ad hominem game too. The issue with that right there is: your underlying argument is "But I LIKE my OP DPS and I WANT to just nuke the map because it's convenient and I don't really CARE if YOU'RE not having fun! You can go play somewhere ELSE. I EARNED this, but you somehow DIDN'T earn your right to play." Which is quite selfish. Let your teammates actually play too. If you can't play nicely with others, play by yourself. "Eh, but it's a PUBLIC match, can't I do whatever I want?" Well yeah, but then people will complain and eventually your frames will be nerfed. Relax. Play with friends who actually want to leech off of you. Everything's going to be okay. Funny how that cuts both ways, huh?
  11. Well, if actual discussion is on the table instead of the "no u r selfish" this debate started with, I am more than happy to oblige: Nerf energy economy, and nerf Corrupted Mods. The issue with DPS frames is not that they deal lots of damage or that they can wipe out entire rooms at once. The issue is that they can do it constantly and without any support from teammates. By nerfing energy economy and Corrupted Mods, the +strength/range/duration builds that enable such extensive map-nuking should be unsustainable without teammate support. To prevent this from affecting solo play disproportionately, drop rates for Health and Energy should be tweaked for solo matches. Incidentally, these changes would also support an overall more balanced environment where support/CC powers are actually useful outside of insanely scaled scenarios. They would also remove the need for every boss to have major power immunity to avoid being directly trivialized by CC spam. That's not ironic at all. I am not attacking you personally with my arguments. FFS and for the last time, this is not about kills. Get that through your thick skull, or we're done here. I could not care less about whether someone in a lobby gets more or less kills than I do. I don't even bother looking at the stats on the post-mission screen. I don't care how many kills someone else is getting, as long as I get to play instead of standing around twiddling my thumbs waiting for wave 5 to roll around while someone else does everything. Yes, how silly of me to expect to play the game while attempting to play the game. What a radical idea it is that if a mission has 4 players, 4 players should be participating. Clearly, I am selfish and insane for thinking players' ability to participate is more important than their ability to deal excessive amounts of area damage. ._. My intended solution would address all of those frames and every new frame thereafter at once. The goal is not to make DPS frames useless; only to tone them down so that team activities are actually TEAM activities, and not "effectively solo" to use DE's own words. I wholeheartedly agree that DPS frames can be expected to kill lots of enemies very quickly, and that every Warframe should be a viable choice for balanced content. That does NOT mean that DPS frames need to nuke maps so quickly and efficiently that they are the only ones actually getting to play the friggin game.
  12. Yes, really. The game was fine before map-nuking was possible. So adjust the efficiency drain rate to compensate for the reduced DPS. This is not rocket science. Nerfs are not punishments. In a LOW LEVEL mission, nuking is utterly unnecessary. There's even less of an excuse for it than in Hydron. If you truly care that much about finishing the mission "efficiently," just solo it. You'll kill things just as easily and you won't have to wait for bunch of slowpokes to make it to extraction. So what? What do schedule conflicts have to do with this? If you consider Warframe "at the expense" of your free time rather than something you want free time to spend playing, I question why you're even playing. Available playtime has nothing to do with preferred playstyle. Let me try again to spell it out for you, seeing as how you seem to be struggling with wrapping your head around the idea that no player is more important than any other player: I also have limited free time that I have invested in the game to get to where I am. When some player in a public match insists on nuking the map so that me and 2 other teammates don't have anything to do but idle or quit and try re-matching, that wastes my limited time to play. How can you pretend that 1 player ruining the game for 3 others is less selfish than the players who just want to actually play the game? What are you even going on about? Feedback exists for a reason, right? Look, this isn't Why are you trying to explain to me what my kit is designed to do? Do you think I don't know that? The point was that simply buffing other Warframes does not solve the issue of nuking, as you claimed it would. Nerfs are needed to address the problem. Not repeats of Ember, mind you, but still nerfs. Yes, and what I'm saying is that DPS frames should actually need support to achieve constant map nuking. Do you know how you combat power creep? Nerfs. Hate to break it to you, but DE isn't going to actually move forward with nerfs unless a good deal more than "a few upset Nekros players" are complaining. A handful of complaining players isn't going to do anything. When the nerfs happen, it will be because enough players complained for DE to take notice and agree that there is a problem. First, the "numbers" argument is a really bad one for you because the vast majority of players don't even bother with the Forums and won't actually care enough to say anything about it. Second, players throwing tantrums doesn't actually stop DE from making changes.
  13. You think I don't have Ember or Mirage? Why are you blaming the players who complained instead of the players who generated those complaints? I agree that Ember needs buffs, and I will fully support effective buffs to her kit to make her viable for higher-level content. But that doesn't mean map-nuking is needed. Yes, I agree that is a problem which needs to be fixed. Again, why are you blaming the complaints and not the behavior that led to those complaints. Do you feel "I want to be allowed to play" is an unfair or unreasonable complaint? BullS#&$. The Ember nerf was done horribly - it further weakened Ember without actually solving the problem related to the complaints; Ember can still nuke low level content. It was a bad nerf, which should have been handled differently. I know why: more teammates = more spawns to nuke. I play Warframe to play it, not to watch others play it for me. It's not like "easy victories" are in short supply or particularly valuable in this game. The irony of this complaint is really something else. Lies. If a player is specifically helping a friend/clanmate that can easily be done in a private match where nobody will complain. Nukers play public to get boosted spawns. That's all there is to it. Bingo. If nukers were merely doing a public service, they would gladly stop if asked to stop. They typically refuse to stop, though. HAH. Neat, so do I. Neat, so do I. Utter hyperbole. 4 players killing 100% of the enemies can be just as fast as 1 player killing 100% of the enemies. Nerfing DPS a bit does not stop a frame from being DPS if it still deals more damage faster than non-DPS frames. Nothing, because as I openly acknowledge, it was a bad nerf that failed to actually address the problem. It should have been done differently. Why do you assume those Warframes should be exempt? The problem is solo map-nuking. No single Warframe should be able to nuke the map without active teammate support. That doesn't mean DPS frames can't exist or be useful. That doesn't mean missions need to take 10x as long to finish. That doesn't mean DPS frames shouldn't be solo-viable. It just means that 1 player should not be able to unilaterally hijack the entire mission when 3 other players also want to play.
  14. Here's something radical to think about: Why was Ember nerfed? Because players complained that Embers spamming WoF ruined low-level missions by killing everything so fast that 3/4 players couldn't actually play. So, if those Embers who didn't even need teammates in the first place played Solo or Private matches instead of hijacking public missions... who would complain and get Ember nerfed? Uh... The same S#&amp;&#036; happened with Mirage and her Synoid Simulor. Obnoxious behavior from selfish players is what brings these things into the spotlight for nerfing. This "only buff" mentality really needs to die. It's why we have <5% drop rates, an endless stream of grindy new filler resources, and 1-dimensional non-interactive boss fights like the Wolf. Saryn/Equinox killing things too efficiently does not mean my unkillable Nekros needs buffs. So why is a nuker playing public to level their stuff more efficient than playing Solo/Private to level their stuff, considering they're killing everything anyway?
×
×
  • Create New...