Lemonpartydragon
-
Posts
66 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Lemonpartydragon
-
-
1 minute ago, Nazrethim said:
The other option would be reducing damage, which would leave several weapons in a bad position. Best case would be if DE reworks Channeling or at least separates it from energy and giving it it's own resource, which would be a welcome change.
Ah, yeah. I think I recall seeing you talk about giving Channeling a resource or something, and the other option was cooldowns. Both seem better than what we have.
What about, instead of damage/block, Channeling gradually decays eHP at a small rate?
-
4 hours ago, Nazrethim said:
The drawback is the best we've had actually. Reworking Channeling is (or should be) on DE's to-do list. The 'on hit' we had before was pure unmitigated bullsh*T. Slow weapons needed the 20% attack speed to hit consistently, good luck hitting something without that buff, and you need to hit to gain it, so scr*w you. Fast weapons could easily get a hit in and gain the buff, except that fast weapons generally didn't need it in the first place. That's the issue with 'On hit' mechanics on melee weapons. With a gun is easier because you have range and zero animation lock.
Martial Fury is fine as it is now. If energy passive gain were to be cut down, then MF will need it's drawback replaced with something else while remaining a passive effect, the best alternative is -x% Block like RA in it's first incarnation.
That gives me a clearer idea of the problem. If that's what it takes, then, I see no major issue; though it is perhaps a bit strange to force the offense/defense tradeoff with MF when melee itself already trades off a lot of potential for both due to the range constraint. Is there anything else that would work with diminished energy that you could think of offhand? I'm not really familiar enough with the nuances of melee to speculate.
-
Agreed. Ability-based CC has always seemed weird and annoying - the game mode is about aiming and being mobile; why bastardize it with random free lockdown?
Maybe replace the Staggered debuff on abilities with something like Terrify's damage debuff? Maybe just a flat 0.1 Mobility debuff without the maneuver restrictions of Staggered? Something like that.
-
1 hour ago, Witchydragon said:
They don't let us alter the camera angle/distance, configure the HUD deeply at all, change the mouse sensitivity with precise numbers rather than sliders, or disable wall cling. I don't know how "easy" or viable or likely it is to give players this level of customization over such a small part of the game.
To clarify: it should not be hard, in principle, to change the code of the game in such a way as to implement any of these things. At least, not in any way that immediately comes to mind.
DE's weird aversion to clientside QoL customization is a different story.
-
1 hour ago, Witchydragon said:
The actual multiplier doesn't mean anything unless they affect the kill thresholds, arbitrary numbers like that would probably still let all snipers instagib headshot all tank frames, although of course someone would have to verify the numbers. Snipetron Vandal, Rubico, and Vectis do not need a higher headshot multiplier/instagib more tank frames, but Snipetron and Lanka could use the buff.
Well, yes, that is the basic sentiment. I am just spitballing numbers.
Are you sure about Rubico, though? It's generally rather awful unless one finishes a kill with it.
-
54 minutes ago, SevenLetterKWord said:
Players in Conclave have ferrite armor and electric damage has no modifier against shields.
Since when is our armor Ferrite in Conclave?
Modified the other bit; I was thinking of Magnetic and ended up projecting that onto Electric damage somehow. Oops.
-
57 minutes ago, SevenLetterKWord said:
If you believe there are frames with overpowered abilities, then you should address those frames on a case-by-case basis.
After all, changing the overall energy system will not resolve relative imbalances in ability strength.You are assuming that the utility of abilities remains constant, or perhaps increases, as player skill increases.
In the absence of evidence towards that claim, I assert to the contrary that as player skill increases, the relative utility of abilities decreases.
How often do you see a highly skilled Excalibur player using Exalted Blade?The value of different abilities will scale differently across skill levels.
It is valid for some abilities to be primarily worthwhile at low skill and for other abilities to be primarily worthwhile at high skill.Energy Surge occurs not only as an independent match modifier, but as a modifier applied to all matches under specific conditions, generally achieved near the end of a match.
In these cases, the onset of Energy Surge is always well telegraphed by a big old "Energy Surge" notification appearing on the top of your HUD.In general, some inconsistency for the sake of variety is tolerable.
We need not so rigorously apply the philosophy of "No Items, Fox Only, Final Destination".Problems with match modifiers should be discussed in a new thread.
The slight shift in energy economy from orbs to passive gain is likely meant to curb snowballing in orb collection.
Especially in this new era of orb scarcity, a player who dominates a match will surely also dominate orbs.
Thus, it is appropriate for all players to receive increased passive energy gain in compensation.I do not assume that the utility of abilities remains strictly constant, but for some abilities I would happily assert no significant falloff. Examples close at hand are Slash Dash (which is probably why we don't see much EB), Shock, Spores, Fire Blast, Sonic Boom... the utility of certain abilities, such as Magnetize, may arguably decrease when a player becomes good enough to exercise godlike aim, but the utility of applying hugely debilitating CC or finish off enemies from across a tile through a wall really does not.
We may not need to rigorously apply such austerity, but I certainly think that modifiers should be more systematic and constrained to their own subset of Conclave. Obviously there are issues with this considering the already fractious population, but that is an issue for another thread, as you say.
I think your last statements really capture the quintessence of what I view as a problem. To paraphrase it:
Quote...in this new era of orb scarcity, a player who dominates a match will surely dominate orbs. Thus it is appropriate to compensate all other players for playing less skillfully and failing to keep control of key resources on the map.
I'm all for shoring up the framework of activities where participants are intrinsically and immutably disadvantaged. Skill, however, is neither intrinsic nor immutable; one may build skill, and one does - but not be being coddled with arbitrary "compensation."
-
1 hour ago, SevenLetterKWord said:
I don't see how either of these are solutions.
The primary problem identified is that certain finisher animations enjoy excessive aim assist.
Increasing the trigger range of finishers would only exacerbate this.Woops. I did lose track of the thesis of the original post somewhere in the comments about how the animation locking is a problem. Should have tagged that in the comment - amending now.
-
I see two expedient solutions to the animation locking disadvantage, which might be worth solving if one drops tracking - simply because the whole thing might as well get a polish, right?
- Speed up all melee finishers and trigger them from a slightly longer distance. This gives melee a slight buff for knockdown-dependent kill potential, but that probably isn't a bad thing considering the incentive it provides to avoid wild spam and dependency on the Staggered debuff.
- Remove the ability to trigger ground Finishers in Conclave and instead buff damage against knocked-down targets by some significant factor (1.5-1.75x)? This would remove all problems with animation lock and would resolve at least some part of desync, but it also risks making longer-reaching melee weapons a bit... too effective at knockdown-killing for fairly obvious reasons.
-
On 11/8/2016 at 0:35 PM, Irorone said:
Damage type interactions? Last I checked there are no status procs or crit procs in conclave so the only interaction would be armor which varies by frame.
Not exactly no as I mentioned but pretty close. He was saying that the only two things to keep in mind is per shot damage and mag size which is why I kept mentioning how the accuracy stat is a big deal.
And the fact you only have to stay on target for 2-4 shots as opposed to 20-40 in a rapidly direction changing movement environment.
Except they do because it's not like an Ignis you have to be in the correct ballpark to even hit with an automatics.
Last time I checked MISSING affects your dps a LOT.
Tries to take player accuracy and weapon based bullet spread out of the picture in a statement about PVP damage *facepalm*.
Have you ever tried to melee somebody mid bullet jump jousting? I doubt it based on how easy you think melee kills are on rapidly moving targets in conclave. Also the fact you're bringing in a "bugged mod" in a discussion about pvp balance on weapons. Again if they have the tracking for it than they're probably even better with aforementioned potshot weapons. Also I mentioned WoF because said spray and pray weapons tend to work a lot better if something else softens up the targets first.
Actually it does create balance in a PVP environment, people just don't consider balance necessarily fun. If each side has the same weapons, the same map opportunities etc. then the only difference is in player skill AKA balanced PVP.
Symmetry IS necessary for balanced PVP but as mentioned; balanced pvp is not necessarily fun pvp. Also yes it can be implemented in FFA, it's called radial symmetry. It's not a matter of balance at that point it's a matter of fun and last I checked "balance" was supposed to be the point of your argument.
Different styles of weapons require different playstyles to maximize effectiveness.
Shotguns-get close and on target
Autos-staying on target and adjusting for variances in bullet spread between different autos.
Projectiles-leading and predicting enemy movement
If you're gonna say automatics are OP just because they have a LOT of bullets despite everything I've mentioned (player tracking and skill, weapon variety, ammo efficiency etc.) than this topic is really nothing more than you ranting about how you don't like automatics in PVP cuz they offer a steady stream of bullets.
*Drops mic exits stage right*
You really miss the point here, I think.
All PvE damage-type interaction are present in Conclave. Cold is better against Alloy armor, Puncture against Ferrite, Electric against Magnetic, etc. This is important, as some automatics have particularly effective damage spreads atop their already high damage per-shot (Karak W. is a good case: primarily Impact means that it shreds shields, which have been a slight bulk on eHP for some time now, if I recall correctly).
As for DPS, yes, obviously missing decreases your DPS over the timespan of a whole match or engagement. This has absolutely nothing to do with how, for shots that land, DPS is consistent and high for automatic weapons - and thus how, because large-mag automatics can just keep spraying and reliably hit 15-20% of their shots even when a blind stoat is pulling the trigger, autos consistently deal outsize damage despite the players using them having terrible aim. Staying on-target only scales this damage advantage higher, creating a weird performance curve for the weapon class where they overperform for both low and very high skill, and are on-par somewhere in the middle.
Melee hits mid-BJ are not exceptionally difficult. During the reaper air melee metagame it was easy to pick up kills or wear down enemies this way, particularly when jumping past each other for this exact purpose was common. This is also fairly irrelevant.
Not sure where you get off dropping a mic you don't even have.
-
On 11/9/2016 at 8:46 PM, Witchydragon said:
A 2.5 headshot multiplier on the vanilla Snipetron (not vandal) and possibly Rubico makes sense because of their tiny magazines and obscenely slow reload times (Snipetron in particular). It also makes sense on the Lanka as it is a projectile weapon. However, 2.5 headshot multiplier on Snipetron Vandal and Vectis will definitely mitigate tank defenses heavily and negates most reasons to use other sniper rifles.
It might be overkill on the Vectis considering the high damage/shot that already exists, and I can definitely see your point about the Snipetron Vandal. Nevertheless, if snipers are low-HTK weapons that act as a counterpoint to tank frames (which seems to be their ostensible purpose, now), even the Snipetron Vandal could use a small buff. What about something like 2.5x for Snipetrona and Lanka, and 2.15-2.25x for Snipetron Vandal, Rubico, Vectis?
-
21 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:
Zarr projectiles are small, fast, and telegraphed only by a weak smoke trail.
The same applies to the Ogris.I would appreciate a light, as with the Penta, and a tracer, as with the Tonkor.
From a user's perspective, this would also be helpful in learning to handle the Zarr's arcing.Some manner of projectile light sounds appropriate.
21 hours ago, Witchydragon said:I've been firing it like a rocket launcher instead of a grenade launcher this entire time because I had no idea how it arced. A bigger light show would also make it's damage appear more appropriate, as the current near invisible aoe makes dying to it feel like dying out of nowhere.
Absolutely - it seems like a fair weapon considering the proportion of total damage per shot that depends on landing the bomblets, but the Zarr's minimalist projectiles definitely make it feel much worse to play against than it actually is.
Let's ask for the Zarr to shoot disco balls, shall we?
-
On 11/16/2016 at 3:00 AM, bernad2218 said:
id suggest 0.5
I personally feel like this is a bit high, but perhaps considering the changes to energy orb spawns, it would be more appropriate.
On 11/16/2016 at 7:19 AM, Nazrethim said:We have that, well, melee players have if they have Martial Fury. Reversing the energy buff would mean either changing the drawback of Martial Fury to something else (like less block) or reversing it to it's previous sh*tty 20s on hit gimmick.
The drawback of Martial Fury is rather poorly implemented, I think. Reworking Channeling altogether would be a much better alternative, but barring that I feel as though some brief time-on-hit debuff (less than 20s, though) would be more effective.
That said, I currently believe that the implementation of melee post-SotR is bad, and it is a relatively low priority in my considerations.
On 11/16/2016 at 9:34 AM, rockscl said:play nova
This is not responsive to issues of overall balance.
On 11/16/2016 at 10:49 AM, Nighttide77 said:Despair mod that creates an energy drain AOE...when it works...
When it works, yeah. But even then, being forced into using a few specific energy-draining abiltiies or weapons just to counter a universally engorged regeneration rate seems... unreasonable. Better that the entire energy regime be more balanced and then these draining abilities function as anti-energy counterplay.
23 hours ago, Pythadragon said:Anti power powers
- nova 1
- mag 1 (augment)
- nekros 1 (augment)
- loki 4
- limbo 1 (rhino can't do anything with his iron skin if he's banished!)
- banshee 3
Anti power weapons
- Gammacors
- Despair (augment)
Innate energy regen at a usable level is necessary for new players who do not have the skills necessary to control the energy on the map. Powers in general are meant to balance out for skill, and the follow through mod that grants free energy on respawn goes hand in hand with this as well.
I think that using powers to mitigate low skill is a bad balance regime. Consider this: at low values of skill, powers bring match performance closer to some overall mean as you say. Sounds great. However, not all powers are equal - some frames, such as Ember, Ash, Volt, Equinox, or Excalibur (among others) have decidedly more effective powers - either because of outright power, high benefit per unit cost, or attached CC that gives a huge functional increase to efficacy. As skill increases, energy regeneration does not scale back and dilute the compensation effect of easy access to powers. Thus, as player skill gradually increases with experience and brings their skill-dependent performance closer to the mean of player performance, energy has the effect of overcompensating - something that is vaguely universal in the "average" abilities, but that becomes much more pronounced in frames with high-power abilities. As a result, players who are hovering around average skill, but using a handful of frames with highly-effective powers, will perform much better than they ostensibly should.
I believe it would be better to scale back energy regeneration and push players to build and rely on skill, rather than haplessly spamming powers - particularly those that have mediocre implementation. This is not a perception argument - we are not determining the value of energy differently - but rather a normative one: I think Conclave should be a different way than it is. I very much like the idea of a cooldown system as a possible alternative, as well.
23 hours ago, -InV-igo95862 said:We need a cooldown based system for abilities. Look at Limbo - this is what happens with energy system. People just collect 100 energy and go for cheap ultimate kills. There will be no synergy between abilities, no tactics. Only spam of few best.
Seems reasonable. Cooldowns elegantly abrogate many problems with potentially "overpowered" abilities.
21 hours ago, SevenLetterKWord said:Remember that The Index Preview, which increased passive energy gain to 1 per second (1.5 during Energy Surge), also changed energy orbs to operate as follows:
"Energy orbs now spawn based on player count. 1 for 2-3 players, 2 for 4-6 and all for 7-8."Surge (and the other random conditionals for matches) should probably just be removed. They offer little in way of benefit because they disrupt consistency in gameplay, are poorly indicated, and do not seem appropriate to a skill-based game mode when they introduce such egregious imbalances during their activation. The changes to orb spawns are good - they promote more assiduous site control in games with fewer players - but the orbs exist on something of a separate conceptual plane than passive regeneration. Orbs reward careful play - mobility, denial, map presence; regeneration is unconditionally free, and as such should not be so abundant.
-
On 11/16/2016 at 0:39 AM, MokutoBunshi said:
must be tough man.
]\'[
It is, actually. And it would be such an easy fix.
-
On 11/16/2016 at 0:35 AM, JSharpie said:
So long as it's a toggle, I'm absolutely behind you, just like the camera..
On 11/16/2016 at 6:21 AM, Nazrethim said:+1 If it's optional. It would be a welcome addition to PvE too!
13 hours ago, -Jackson said:Agreed. I call for optional as well.
Optional seems good. I never really give thought to optional changes, I suppose. I shall amend the parent post.
-
4 hours ago, (PS4)Ali_AmmarKh said:
Inb4 lock
A piece of constructive feedback that clearly identifies a problem?
Not sure why this would be locked.
-
A massive problem with the movement/camera/aim interactions present in Warframe is that, while aiming and moving, sometimes the body of one's Warframe slips in front of the reticle, obscuring the view significantly. This should change - it would be great for QoL.
Just add an optional fade-out to our Warframes that commences when we aim down sights. 60-75% should be plenty, and it would be great for both Conclave and the broader game. But at least Conclave. Because it's actually fun.
-
Chevrons took away from the ability of players to make edgy black frames and hide in dark corners that the abysmal map brightness and gratuitous lens flare create. Fine. But the new outlines (well, old-ish at this point) are a mediocre red color that really should be adjustable client-side.
Give us a slider or color palette or something that allows us to change the outlines that we see around other players. Extra brightness isn't necessary, I suppose, but at least let those poor colorblind souls (like me) actually see what we are shooting at.
-
Zarr seems really cool, and its damage is actually pretty reasonable. But the projectiles do not seem to be... visible. This is a rather significant problem in Conclave, as being aware of where potential damage sources are located is key to movement-based counterplay.
Maybe refer this to the art team? Or add a stupid red outline that my colorblind self still won't see (like you never fixed on the frames)?
But something. Zarr's great otherwise, 11/10 would get shot again.
-
Holy wow. Increasing energy regen from .25/s to .75s was bad enough, but 1.0/s? This is ridiculous.
We get access to a surfeit of powers in exchange for doing literally nothing at all. You can stand in a corner for just under two minutes and get a free ult. This allows overabundant use of CC-heavy abilities, damage boosts, mitigation, and the like, and massively detracts from the more skillful parts of Conclave such as aiming and moving.
I suggest 0.35/s. Energy will still be available, but not casually abundant, and we should see players depending more on on their own skills - what the game mode is ostensibly about - and not on wild power spam.
-
Four matches in a row I tried to press ESC to close the chatbox. Four matches, I left instead because we were done and the score screen was up. Fix this.
I have nothing else to say.
-
I was surprised to see just how strong Rime Vault became with the cold proc buff. I want my Searing Leap lens-flare back for... uh, balance.
But seriously, yeah - nerf it.
-
Title.
But really, without a server browser the experience is always going to be extremely half-basked - players roll terrible, unstable servers or servers in whole other regions of the world, and then because other people join in on them, those servers stay somewhat populated and everyone has a bad time.
With a server browser we could easily select a server with good ping and reputed stability - which would ideally play into the server "karma" system that @Witchydragon desires.
DE plz
-
10 hours ago, Pythadragon said:
No.
2.5x headshot multiplier was negating the EHP advantage of tank frames, which are balanced to survive 2 bodyshots (or 1 headshot) against all snipers.
This was also allowing a 'low damage' sniper like snipetron vandal to 1 headshot kill tank frames. It was screwing up the balance between high damage and low damage snipers by giving all of them 1 hs kill capability against all frames.
Honestly? Even if it negated the advantage of "tank" frames, I don't see that as a huge issue. Maybe a 2.25x multiplier would be better. But, in terms of performance, >2.0x was really nice to have simply because snipers suffer so many other simultaneous drawbacks - bad reload speed, terrible fire rate and mag size, the necessity of scoping in, scope sway...
The list goes on. Having powerful weapons is not a bad thing, and the recent shift toward tank frames being able to survive previously one-shotting weapons is not good in my opinion. Ultimately, that is where we contend - what way Conclave should be.
Conclave: Remove All PvE Dependency
in Conclave
Posted · Edited by Lemonpartydragon
Fixed a typo in the tagline
PvP should be self-contained. Tying it to PvP accomplishments invariably leads to a massive gap in new(er) players' ability to participate in PvE despite it having nothing to do with PvP except requiring the accumulation of PvE-centric rewards such as weapons and frames.
There are two solutions I would propose.
Implementing either of the two above systems would help to ease players' entry into Conclave by decoupling Conclave content from PvE content.
There is a risk that implementing solution 1 would result in a weird situation like that of Archwing, except with no mandatory content (such as quests) to offer incentives for participating. Ideally this should be alleviated by the "starter pack" and relatively generous currency rewards outlined above.