Jump to content

Test-995

PC Member
  • Posts

    2,337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Test-995

  1. On 2020-04-03 at 3:13 PM, Sweg178 said:

    Otherwise there wont be any difference between someone who put 3k hours in the game and someone with only 300 hours in game. 

    I suppose that's what DE exactly want this game to be, and i don't think it's bad.

    We don't really need so called end-game it seems.

  2. 40 minutes ago, JackHargreav said:

    And it's kinda needed to not make other weapon types less relevant. Even with fall off explosives are pretty OP especially now that self damage is gone.

    It's not like other weapons can be relevant by nerfing explosives 🙃

  3. 10 minutes ago, (XB1)XG1anBl4derX said:

    No, he doesn't. People tend to assume so because they also assume Vex Armor affects Arcanes, but it doesn't, because Vex Armor works like a mod and mods don't work together with Arcanes.

    Did i said "he is tankier than inaros/va/nidus whatnot"? "tanky enough" is NOT "he has crazy EHP", elemental ward and vex armor should be strong enough to keep him up.

    12 minutes ago, (XB1)XG1anBl4derX said:

    Have you actually seen the armor buffs...? It's so low that I don't get why are you and him complaining, that feels stupid asf.

    I don't get why you are against it, there is pretty much no reason not to.

    Plenty of frames were fine without armor buffs anyway, this is not about actual advantage/necessity, but more about fairness.

  4. 3 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    Also, have you considered that many players using explosives may just be doing so in private/solo play? That deals with most of the arguable 'unpredictability' that is Ally Collision problems, leaving the rest purely up to competence. Nothing wrong with a niche when, I point out yet again, self-damage was present in less than 10% of the weaponry available (and less than 4% if only counting purely dumbfire).

    I don't think de would do anything if those 10% weapons are actually popular, i'm not talking about personal experience there.

     

  5. 17 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    It's not unfair to die because you made a mistake with self-damage any more than it's unfair to die because you sat stationary in front of a Fomorian murder-laser. You make a mistake, you pay the price, you strive to do better next time. It's predictable risk, the controlling factor is your own judgement.
    Again, though, that doesn't mean 'everyone has to get good with self-damage weapons'. It means 'people CAN get good with self-damage weapons, if they enjoy the process of doing so'. You don't like that ultimate risk? That's perfectly acceptable. You demand that risk removed to suit your own personal tastes? No, that's not okay.

    Yes, everyone makes mistake eventually regardless of how skilled they are (esp in warframe, this is the game that will be played braindead 80% of times), and if you need to sacrifice life or damage to counter it, most people will just ignore those.

    Those weapons were nearly same as nonexistent, now it's weaker but still exists (or maybe not, 90% falloff is ridiculous)

  6. 1 minute ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    Well, no. The old one is "die whether viable or not" and the new is "increasingly risky as increasingly rewarding". You could choose a build that two-shots enemies if you're worried about one-shotting yourself. Doubling output is always less than doubling self-damage, that's the point of having a diminishing factor.

     Enemy EHPs are ridiculously dynamic in this game, even after the new update, balancing would be mess with such system.

    3 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    The point is not liking the act of killing yourself any more than a skydiver would actually like their parachute to fail with terminal results. It's in the risk factor. It's in overcoming that risk through mastery.

    It's not that different, you'll still die unless you are some robotics that have perfect accuracy, and that's unfair.

  7. 1 minute ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    Well, that's the point. Not a cap of damage, just making it so that it becomes fatal to us closer to where we expect to need it to be to remain fatal to our enemies.

    So, Serration might not make it fatal to us just as it'd fall off quickly against opposition, but a 6+ damage-mod loadout is more likely to be approaching the mutual murder threshold.

    So basically not that different from old one? "sacrifice damage massively to survive, or use actually viable build and die" style.

    That's still unnecessary punishment for using decent weapons.

    6 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    There was no reason to remove it since it's never forced on a player directly (e.g. Sortie condition) or indirectly (too powerful, obligation overrides personal view) and there are so many other things to choose from. So - like you said yourself - what's the point of making those people who like a risky playstyle unhappy?

    FIne, make it a config 🙄

    Possibly because it's just no good for plenty of players, and i didn't thought about anyone who likes to die in a game (yes, there might be someone who likes old lich more)

  8. 5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    So damage risk/reward is replaced by damage no-risk/no-reward. That's a great change. /s

    Reduce the risks to scale sensibly with the player's potential health vs. potential damage. Using this new accuracy of risk/reward ratio, improve the damage output for the weapons which aren't already the Bramma.

    People still not liking self-damage after that have more than 90% of the other weapons to choose from. There was no need to remove it and ruin an entire weapon archetype for the sake of greedy entitlement.

    No, damage instadeath/meh-reward has replaced by damage no-risk/zero-reward.

    And considering how easy it is to heal our frames, damage that doesn't kill us is pretty much pointless as "risk", changing systems like that is almost equivalent to removing damage.

    What's the point of making people unhappy when there is no reason to do so?

  9. 1 minute ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

    Then you can leave the soft boy AOEs as they already are, and we have - surprise, surprise - a variety of viable options depending on what any given player likes and dislikes. Because not everyone will (or needs to) like and use every weapon.

    Not really, we have melees and abilities, there wasn't much of reasons to use explosive weapons even before the nerf, self damage was the cherry on top.

    Now self damages are replaced by damage fall off.

×
×
  • Create New...