Jump to content


PC Member
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation


About Bristoling

  • Rank
    Silver Novice

Recent Profile Visitors

167 profile views
  1. It simply means more players created new accounts due to hype, but quickly realized the game isn't for them or the hype was fake news (Lich/Railjack release fiasco + content drought lasting many months). This revenue for 2019 doesn't inform us on anything other that more people tried the game but less people liked it. To be back on topic, it is true that you can theoretically access level 100 content at MR5, but realistically players will be MR10-15 by the time they can actually compete in this content. Most of these lower MR players are simply carried by vets in public matchmaking.
  2. Well yes of course they won't benefit from +75% vs cloned flesh, but they will neither benefit from +75% vs ferrite + ignore 75% of armor. Sure, reducing 90% of armor (Corrosive 80% + 10% remaining with Heat) will benefit other damage types but so will damage multiplication from Viral status (+50% armor strip). That's why I only compared pure Viral vs pure Corrosive damage. I missed that. We are on the same page then, because I do believe that currently Corrosive is kind of underpowered in comparison to Viral which is just such a good all rounder currently that there is little benefit to swapping to Corrosive vs Grineer. However I still think buffing Corrosive instead of nerfing Viral might not be the best way to go about it. It might balance it better vs high level enemies, but for majority of playerbase (or new players) Viral would still be the number 1 go to status. It makes the game very uninteresting as there is little choice for levels 1-60 for example, if there is only 1 good element combination that doesn't has to be swapped out for the first 150 or 300 hours of gameplay. We need to remember that its the new players that pay the bills, and if their choice is limited to only Viral (because everything else is meh in comparison), they will get bored faster and might not buy this plat pack, which will mean less money to pay the devs, which means slower development, which means less content for us.
  3. Use Electric+Viral instead, the combo still works albeit it is weaker. Enemies health and armor was also nerfed so there is no point in saying that other effects got nerfed. Everything was nerfed, enemies included. In fact the enemies are way too weak now. If other statuses are much weaker and Viral stands out, then yes, Viral is too strong in comparison to them. Other statuses being weak, or Viral being too strong, is a separate issue but end of the day it is just sematics. If you stand on a mountain, are you the one who is too high, or are the hills below you too low? Meaningless discussion until you are certain what elevation is the baseline. But we can still have a discussion about why the hill and the top of the mountain aren't on the same level, or if there should be mountains, hills and valleys in the first place.
  4. This Gokstad Officer level 175 only exists in the Simulacrum. Lets entertain level 175 Heavy Gunner example instead (that's still over an hour or two of endurance run). She has 9791 armor. Let's say your weapon has 10k damage. You deal 17.5k (Ferrite bonus), and bypass 75% of the armor (0.891% reduction). Let's assume you stripped 80% of armor, then another 10% with Heat - down to 244 (0.445%). Your end damage is 9712. With Viral, you deal 17.5k (Cloned Flesh bonus), strip 50% of armor (0.942% reduction), get 4.25x multiplier from status. End damage is 4287, so only half as much. You could say that it is proven without the shadow of the doubt that Corrosive+Heat is better than Viral+Heat. But you completely ignored other part of my post, because Grineer also have Alloy armor. Take level 175 Bombard or Napalm. 9874 armor. With Corrosive+Heat, this is 987 armor, 0.767% reduction. If you deal 10k damage, your final damage is 2330. If you take Viral+Heat, you are dealing 17.5k damage vs 4937 armor, 0.943% reduction, but get 4.25x multiplier. Your final damage is 4239, so Viral+Heat deals almost twice the damage of Corrosive. Majority of bosses, good chunk of Grineer units (the common ones like Elite Lancers, or tanky ones like Bombard/Napalm/Nox) and all Index enemies have Alloy Armor, vs which Viral is usually twice as strong IF we assume high status weapons. If we assume weapons with low status chance, Viral straight up doubles the damage on first proc, while Corrosive has to stack multiple times to achieve the same effectiveness. If we assume crit weapons, Hunter Munitions + Viral shreds. Slash based weapons, again, Viral shreds. Most of melee weapons have high slash or stances forcing slash procs, and Viral shreds, again. You shouldn't trust the Corrosive damage to be in a good spot compared to Viral based on only one graph presenting only one possible scenario. Grineer have 2 armor types. Vs Ferrite, Corrosive is twice as strong. Vs Alloy, Viral is twice as strong. Slash or Crit HM weapons, Viral is stronger. Viral is performing too good. It isn't even a discussion at this point and majority of people agree.
  5. That's a nice neat graph on the previous page but it does not account for the 75% extra damage that Viral deals against Cloned Flesh for the Grineer, or how Corrosive works against Alloy armor, which some of the tanky Grineer units possess (Bombard, Napalm), and where Corrosive loses badly vs Viral. Corrosive+Heat in real game scenarios is only 20% more effective than Viral+Heat vs Grineer (CHG+CB), IF you apply all 10 stacks of each status. With only 1 status each (low status weapon), Viral is boosting dps by 100% while Corrosive deals with 20%-something less armor. It's not comparable. Also, even when you talk purely about the graph presented on the previous page, it is clear that even once Corrosive+Heat overtakes Viral+Heat, it does so, but by a very, very small margin. To say that Virals status proc isn't too strong is a bit delusional.
  6. The reason we have bull 0.1% drop chances is because the game is too easy and there is no challenging content. If your skill as a player cannot be tested because the game is always easy, the only thing that can be tested is your determination and patience. As long as players are playing out their "power fantasy" and there is no hard content, things will always be gated by time rather than gated based on your merit. If the game was harder overall, or had a few very difficult/challenging bosses/raids, DE could set up even 100% drop chance for some rare reward and leave it at that, not gated by grind, because most players would fail the mission or not be able to access it. Many looter games that feature powerful but very rare rewards almost always have these be a hard boss drop that isn't necessarily gated by time and grind, but player skill instead.
  7. I agree that the shields are problematic. There is simply no reason to have more than base amount of shields, in fact the bigger your pool, the harder it is to refill it, the harder it is to reset shield gate. Having more shields simply makes resetting shield gate more difficult, there is little to no benefit. It doesn't make sense from design standpoint that investing in shields would make their main feature (shield gating) weaker and less reliable. I like the idea of reducing the delay before shield recharge takes place by buffing existing recharge mods. They are hot garbage, and they still wouldn't be OP after such change. I don't understand why someone responded by saying "Arcanes and Augur set though", as if it made any difference - shield recharge itself and its mods wouldn't be too strong either way. It isn't even a good argument. So should we never release any new weapons because other weapons already exist? Of course not, so why shoot down the idea of recharge mods (that are worthless) having similar use as existing mechanics? Why not expand player's choice? I don't like the damage reduction scaling with number of shields though, since we don't want shields to be just a "blue armor". But there is another idea that could be used: make the shield gate's length be affected by your maximum shields - the bigger your pool, the longer it lasts. Simpe. This also fixes the first problem, of investing into shields making the shield gate less reliable.
  8. Is "consistency" supposed to be some kind of an argument to keep stagger on things like amps, Cyanex, Pox or other weapons that previouly had miniscule or non-existent self damage before? Because if we want real consistency, then: - all enemies should be staggered equally as our Warframes are - AoE Warframe abilities should also stagger us. Octavia's Mallet, Mag's Magnetize, Saryn's Miasma, you name it, if it is an AoE, it should stagger you. - shooting an ally with an AoE weapon should stagger them, their grandparents, and their pet cat. Because consistency. Or we can throw it out the window because it is a ninja teenage wizard power fantasy and inconsistencies can be explained by "space magic". "Consistency" in a video game is not an argument in and out of itself if it doesn't serve gameplay. Stagger should be decided on a per-weapon basis. For example, please build a Dissic scaffold for your Operator and explain how it's 2 layers of stagger serve to improve the gameplay.
  9. To be fair the game would benefit greatly from nerfing mechanics, frames and weapons that do trivialize the game. Because the game being trivial is fun for a few moments, but ultimately it is horribly boring when all enemies fall over as soon as you look at them. Once game becomes so easy that you play it while watching Netflix, there is no space left for designing challenging/difficult content, instead everything has to be gated by the grind and not your skill or merit. In other words, big grinds and BS rng 0.001% drops are here because we are too strong. Frames like Saryn/Mesa and weapons like Bramma is the reason why the gameplay loop became stale and the game is becoming broad as an ocean but deep as a puddle.
  10. No I'm not. And I have to repeat myself yet again because you seem to be stuck in a loop. I am not butthurt because Bramma is good. I am simply stating a fact that Bramma doesn't deserve to be much better for most in-game content than other weapons requiring similar investment/grind. It should be in line with other weapons of its supposed tier. I skipped Nukor because I'm not here to teach you simple math. But here you go, comparison to Atomos: Base damage: 26-33.6 with the bonus vs 29. 50% status vs 21%. 2.11 damage multiplier with 2 Prime crit mods vs 1.55 (.201 crit chance x 10.5 multi vs .43 crit chance x 3.6 multi). Which goes up to 6.83 multiplier with Arcane Avenger vs 3.16 with Atomos. Nukor is much better than Atomos, that also easily allows you to apply 4 status effects instead of usual 2. So no, its not close to other weapons of its type, you just don't know how to reach its full potential. The closest weapon to Bramma is Lenz with a whooping ammo pool of 6. Sure, it has innate mutation. But you have 3 ways of fixing Bramma's ammo economy. Aura, companion, or Exilus slot. Therefore it is completely in line with other weapons. You are grasping at straws. You forgot to compare their radius. Acceltra deals 50% of its AoE damage at 4m, but Acceltra's AoE damage is only 62% of damage, so really you are dealing 31% of damage at 4m. Bramma deals 55% of its AoE damage at 4.15m - since 81.7% of total damage applies to AoE, it means Bramma is dealing 45% of its damage at 4.15m. You math is wrong because you are comparing apple to an orange. Bramma deals more of its dps at same/similar distance as Acceltra's max radius. I'm not pretending. But you got numerous options to deal with this downside to the point where it doesn't matter. Since it doesn't matter, it's pointless to bring it up. Simple as that. I think around 5 other people already pointed it out but you keep banging your head against the wall. I never stated that. You are either projecting your own intellectual ramblings or are being disingenuous yet again. New "Ultra Hard" modes with level 120-140 enemies won't change a thing since DE nerfed enemies across the board. A Bramma build one or two shots groups of Corrupted Heavy Gunners level 170 btw, most enemies are much weaker than CHGs. I actually carry most teams I'm in. You are still grasping at the much earlier statement that, as I explained already, was made in response to new players getting carried. Do you have reading comprehension problems? Honest question. If not then you are misrepresenting what I said, setting yet another strawman. Again. Anyway please tell me, what would you add to the game to do your part in "advocating for challenge"? Because I hate to break this to you, but to make Warframe challenging, we would have to massively nerf (or rather, rework) player power, including braindead frames like Mesa/Saryn/Limbo, or weapons like Bramma. You cannot keep increasing player power by adding weapons like the Bramma and ask for "challenge" at the same time. Sure, you could buff enemies in response to players getting stronger and stronger, but that's an ass backwards approach because we as players will just use the same cheesy strats we've been always using. Well duh, Sentients have damage gate. You cannot one shot them, that's why people picked fast firing weapons (or Mesa) coupled with Paracesis or Redeemer P (which shots are calculated as multihitting, better dealing with the damage gates). But I guess you will use this 1% of gameplay where Brama isn't the top pick to justify talking about 99% of all other cases instead. Projecting your own feelings again. Semantics. You are arguing my stylistic choice of describing a concept instead of arguing the concept behind it. I said "Weapons aren't content. Weapons are means to do content with and development should focus on giving us more things to do, not more things to do old things with". Do you agree with the bolded part as a concept, which was my whole point? Or prefer to argue the choice of words which is pointless and doesn't get anyone anywhere? Let me reiterate for you: adding weapons is just turning Warframe into a S#&$ty collectors game with no depth. We need more actual, new content to take the weapons we already have and do that content using them. Do you agree or disagree? Or do you think like leveling yet another new weapon on Hydron/ESO classifies as "great, magnificent, outstanding content"? Already addressed it, what, 3 times now? Yeah... no, sorry. You are misrepresenting what I said, all the time. I already gave you one, but you refuse to listen or acknowledge it. Here it is (again): There won't be a singular "best" weapon after Bramma nerf because other weapons are more in line with each other, which promotes diversity if there are more weapons on the same power level. Imagine it like a scale, where currently there's 10 weapons in 70-80 power range, and Bramma that is alone as 94. Why do you think putting Bramma back into 70-80 power range would be disastrous? Why not have 11 weapons in 70-80 power range increasing diversity and choice, compared to subconsciously forcing everyone to pick 1 weapon? Warframe can and should be balanced to have numerous "best weapons", not one that has clearly OP stats and usability. You are having fun using only Bramma now, but you are shooting yourself in the foot, because now every new weapon DE releases is going to be S#&$ in your opinion because it won't beat Bramma. You will be using the same weapon, same playstyle, and you will more likely get bored with the game earlier and quit. By defending objectively OP weapon you are doing yourself a disservice. Can't wait for the next round of replies thrown against arguments I didn't even make, taking things out of context (where context invalidates your position), and repeating that I don't respond to your arguments when I already did to most important ones, and if I didn't respond to something minor and completely offtopic (like Nukor)... well you can't expect me to respond to every sentence one by one, can you? You can try to claim you won some points here but you are constantly using fallacious arguments and misrepresent my position by adding your projections and assumptions despite things being explained to you before. In English, this means your arguments were simply incorrect. You even need me to explain to you why Atomos and Kuva Nukor are in completely different ballpark, or how to properly compare dps of AoE weapons (since your comparison was atrociously bad, lol). Basic objective facts seem to elude you. Are you a Barruk main or something?
  11. When I talk about nerfing it, I don't mean nerfing it to be unusable. Stop strawmaning and misrepresenting things that I (and others) say, because I talked about nerfing it to the point where it lands with other top tier weapons without overshadowing them. I have to repeat my arguments over and over in hope that you understand the meaning behind them instead of attacking arguments I didn't even make. Take a step back, deep breath in, then come back with actual arguments instead of setting up yet another strawman. Also, instead of arguing the point behind the message you are arguing the writing of said message. Like, when you completely ignore things I wrote here: and concentrate on previous, non quintessential example in my argument. Or, pretending like you won some kind of point when I said this: By yourself replying with this: When I was obviously talking about low MR tenno who do let other players finish things for them because they want to get this OP weapon early. I can carry myself solo in all content in the game, thank you very much. I could go on and reply to most of your previous response, but I feel it is a waste of my time. You assume a lot of things that are wrong, misrepresent others taking things out of context, and don't follow logic. You use numerous fallacies including strawman, false dilemma, ad-hominem and tu quoque. I'm sorry to say but the person who's wrong on multiple accounts is you. Stop being disingenuous if you can't refute an argument head on. Bye
  12. As in, run public missions so others can do everything for you. You are arguing semantics here, because the difference between mr5 or mr9 is non consequential to my argument. I'm happy to retract this position for the sake of transparency. This only means 10 out of my 11 assertions were correct anyway. You are already spending 20p on Catalyst, 58p on 5 forma if you count bundle price. Adding another 11p for another forma from the bundle to build it is not a massive expense since you already spent 78p. Even outright buying it is a difference of 78p vs 98p, not significant in the grand scheme of things. You don't sacrifice a mod slot if you are unlocking a mod slot. Your reasoning is illogical. Yes, and there would be nothing wrong in these weapons to come out with stats that are top tier without being overpoweringly better than everything else. Which is what happened to most of the latest additions. Apart from Nukor and Bramma, other kuva weapons or latest primes didn't overpower everything else. They landed in top tiers, adding diversity instead of robbing diversity by making all the other weapons look bad in comparison. Take Corinth Prime for comparison - it's much better than the Corinth, invalidating it, but it isn't as strong to overshadow all other shotguns or other weapons. Again, your argument doesn't make sense. Which is another problem with current day Warframe and a trap you seem to have fallen into. You won't extend playtime by adding new weapons. Weapons aren't content. Weapons are means to do content with and development should focus on giving us more things to do, not more things to do old things with. Another bad argument. Your justification was that Warframe should have a single best weapon because other games have it. It is also useless to bring up single player games like Dark Souls that have a finite story outside of NG+. But I think I understand your point, so let me respond properly: There's nothing wrong with having a single weapon that stands out from other weapons in terms of power, as long as it is a hard to acquire, prestige weapon that is effectively a "chase unique" that everyone wants to get, but only a few can get their hands on it. Bramma is nothing like that, because killing a Lich is not hard or prestigious at all. If it was a 1000 day log-in weapon, or farmable from some uber hard, challenging boss, there would be no problem with its stats. But it isn't, which is the reason why Bramma shouldn't be as powerful as it is currently. I'm not sure even you yourself understand a point you're trying to make there. No. It would bring it in line with other weapons in terms of time to kill per normal mission parameters. It is obviously out of line for 99% of gameplay. You might bring up Orb Mothers (Bramma is fine there actually), or Eidolons, but justifying 99% of the context by bringing up less than 1% is simply disingenuous. It wouldn't remove fun. It would extend your fun because you would have bigger weapon selection if more weapons were on the same level, that can be done by buffing every other weapon, or nerfing one weapon. I hope I don't have to explain which action is more logical. Bramma has OP stats for 99% of regular gameplay compared to rest of the weapons. It shouldn't be because it isn't all that hard to acquire and it isn't "rare" enough to justify its stats. Since now we cannot make Bramma more rare/harder/challenging to acquire because people already have it, and since we don't have challenging/elite content where Bramma parts could be a possible drop anyway (unless we put it somewhere like Eidolons), there is no reason to treat it as some unique/rare/prestige weapon deserving the stats that it has. If your response is gonna be another "but muh fun though" because you like playing games where you are an invincible godmode frame that presses 1 to kill all enemies in 50m range, presses 3 to quadruple the drops, presses 4 to bring up "mission success" screen, and wants Bramma to one shot everything forever and ever because "fun", then I think we are done, because you don't realize that your design philosophy is actually hurting your own enjoyment. Agree to disagree etc. Still can't believe you actually used this sort of reasoning as your argument 😄 Especially since it isn't even harder to farm it than a regular Prime weapon.
  13. Yes, the story quest requiring MR5, alright yes you completely destroyed everyone's argument. Or, maybe realize you are arguing semantics. Ammo mutation in an exilus slot is something that anyone can use, it isn't even an argument. Even without it, running out of ammo isn't something one should be worried in everyday missions. Do you realize that adding every a single new weapon be "the best" invalidates all the rest of the previously added weapons? Do you even know what a definition of a powercreep is? You seem to think that every game has to have a single "best" weapon that far outclasses other weapons and this is the only way a game can be designed, and every newly added weapon has to be better than the rest. That isn't true. There won't be a singular "best" weapon after Bramma nerf because other weapons are more in line with each other, which promotes diversity if there are more weapons on the same power level. Imagine it like a scale, where currently there's 10 weapons in 70-80 power range, and Bramma that is alone as 94. Why do you think putting Bramma back into 70-80 power range would be disastrous? Why not have 11 weapons in 70-80 power range increasing diversity and choice, compared to subconsciously forcing everyone to pick 1 weapon? Warframe can and should be balanced to have numerous "best weapons", not one that has clearly OP stats and usability. You are having fun using only Bramma now, but you are shooting yourself in the foot, because now every new weapon DE releases is going to be S#&$ in your opinion because it won't beat Bramma. You will be using the same weapon, same playstyle, and you will more likely get bored with the game earlier and quit. By defending objectively OP weapon you are doing yourself a disservice. So I guess keeping Hema as a 5k mutagen farm unlock is fine because reducing it is an insult to players. And that silly Conclave guy is your hero. Lol ok.
  14. I've seen MR9s with Bramma before. Anyway, this is a bow with higher crit stats than most snipers, higher base damage than shotguns, bigger AoE than any other primary weapon, innate element of your choice, decent status and droplets to deal with nullifiers. Requires no build time, no resources, no mastery rank, deals no self damage, has no delay like Lenz or any other downside. What could possibly go wrong? Personally I'm surprised that anyone thought that the stats of this weapon are balanced enough to be released.
  15. Changing her 2 to do what her 3 & 4 does, as in replenishing shields? No thank you. It's a stupid idea to change the single best ability Mag has just to make it an unnecessary "shieldheal". Her 3rd scaling with her shield amount is a nice idea. Her 4 just need to pick enemies up and drag them in the air where you point the cursor, and it will be a great ability that would synergize with the rest of the kit by grouping enemies for better Magnetize utilization and harder crowd explosions with her Polarize. Otherwise, please don't change Mag. Your suggestion changes the main ability in her kit, makes her less interesting and less versatile.
  • Create New...