TheLexiConArtist
-
Posts
3,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheLexiConArtist
-
-
1 minute ago, MadMephit said:
Incorrect. Latency notwithstanding, the only channelled abilities that don't block energy pads are the likes of Artemis Bow (whose cost is paid per attack rather than over time), Immolation (at less than full charge when it doesn't drain energy; it will block pads at full charge), and so on. For others that have a continual energy drain, I always need to disengage the ability, charge up (be it through pads or EV or whatever), then reactivate. The closest I know of to a violation of that is Equinox's night-form Pacify, which drains energy over time for each enemy in range but none if there are no enemies nearby.
I should have emphasised, I'm sure it can charge a channelling frame (as opposed to should). In the same context as the following statement regarding Trinity doing it sometimes too. Unintentional, but spaghetticode. How often it happens is arguable though, I see few Trinities but regular energy restore abuse when I'm non-solo, so that biases the odds a bit. Either way, the point remains that they offer an instant near-infinite energy source on-demand requiring nothing but pressing a button any time, anywhere. They are more persistent and reliable than Energise (doubly so with cooldown) or Zenurik focus or hoping for a Trinity/Harrow.
-
1 minute ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:
Energy Restores do not restore energy to warframes using a channeled ability. And most of the time I see players using them at the beginning of a mission, so that they can start casting their abilities. I almost never see them used during a mission.
I'm fairly certain it can charge a channelling 'frame. Then again, so can Trinity sometimes. Maybe there's buggy client/host differences, or it's just part of the grand tangle of Warframe spaghetti we live in. Either way, though, having them spammable on-demand is still an instant refill whenever you choose it, even if you toggle off the channel to do so; you're obviously not the Trinity in this scenario, so her ability to recharge a channelling frame on-demand requires convenient timing or communication, not to mention enemies to target.
-
On 2020-03-05 at 1:44 AM, Salbeira said:
Now it is ...
Viral: Weakens the flesh and increases damage taken? ... Mmmh!
Magnetic: Disrupts tech and increases damage to shields ... ok ... kind of ... but why does the Shield take more damage from subsequent attacks ... instead of just getting weaker?
Corrosion: Acid corrodes armor ... but the effect disappears after a while? Why?I'll give you corrosion, other than a 'space technomancy' argument it's hard to really identify why corroded armour wouldn't stay corroded after the fact.
However, I can justify Viral and Magnetic in my head;
Viral infections playing havoc with your immune system and general bodily responses being diverted off to fighting that, therefore less of the body's resources are standing by for 'mitigating' other forms of damage suffered. Since enemies don't naturally heal health damage, reducing/removing of which would be the most apt consequence of this explanation, it's the next-closest equivalent It's good enough to work, with our standard suspensions of disbelief (it might not hold up to biological science scrutiny, but we're not all doctors here, it 'makes sense' enough).
Magnetic effects are destabilising the 'harmonics' of the shielding technology, so that disrupting impacts are amplified. Besides being energy-based, it's sort of like how - if I remember my schooldays correctly - you can have the same carbon molecules arranged in more rigid interlinking structures (diamond) or softer layered structures (graphite). Weakening the 'bonds', the energy pattern, with the foreign magnetism effect makes the overall structure increasingly weaker and more susceptible to outside forces.
-
They said it was impossible, but it finally happened.
Next item on the docket: Setting the effective rank of our mods below its current fusion rank to allow for fine-tuned build tweaking when capacity can't fit everything maxed, instead of needing a dupe at each rank for full flexibility.
Looking forward to that, it'll reduce the need of up to 10 dupes instead of just 1 sentinel extra!
-
2
-
-
You should be heavily dissuading spam of restores, not enabling them with bigger build packs.
If you see Arcane Energise as enough of a problem to nerf it, and see energy generation enough of a questionable factor to disable several types during channelled abilities (and regen during other drains - looking at you, parasite eximi) then you should remember Energy Restore spam circumvents ALL of these limitations.
No, it's not 'good enough' that it's a resource-costing consumable. If I could make a consumable that auto-completes a mission, it wouldn't matter if each one costs me a pittance of resources, would it? Restore abuse has a similar effect, making it completely different - and in a far more freely accessible way than legendary-rarity Arcanes, restricting a grind-earned Focus school, or demanding pocket Trinities in every mission.
Restores should be used sparingly, or last-resort options, not just used as a completely overriding crutch.
-
1
-
-
Get ye Big Momma Hildryn to be beefy, to counter corpus while replenishing your own defenses, and to bring control to the table.
Get ye a natural toxin melee (even the Karyst will work) so that more of your piddly unmodded damage can be passed directly onto health before shields are whittled away (RIP pure-elemental melee though, tox-only would have been ten times better)
Heavy slam like your life depends on it for best damage and control.
Grofit.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, SpicyDinosaur said:
There are lots of things you can't do as a solo player. This is something you will have to come to terms with if you refuse to play with others. Things will be more difficult solo.
You shouldn't get things handed to you without effort and teamwork for something that is built for that.
There are vanishingly few things you can't do as a solo player. Eidolons are just among the worst for the simple fact that you have to devote something important to the task of babysitting lures. Whether that's by running Trinity - coming at the cost of damage output benefits, notably including Volt as the only frame who lets an operator deal with shields better - or by bringing Vazarin focus - at the cost of other school benefits like reliable energy (since Eidolons are inconsistent for Rage energy-gain triggers), or damage buffs for operator and/or frame.
You might notice that even the 'speed solo' videos involve some incidental losses of lures due to going all-in on damage, and just as often rely on the spamming of energy restores (which should not be considered healthy gameplay).
On the other hand, if you're talking only about Arcanes - to be fair on the other side of the argument, 'nigh-impossible solo' is still sort of an improvement over 'actually impossible solo' as the Raids used to be.
It's just bothersome that the lure mechanic exists as this artificial tantamount barrier. If it was just killing eidolons, there'd be less problem. If Lures weren't vulnerable, too, it'd be straightforward.
@PaladinSS My competent albeit slow solo strategy involves Oberon (Smite Infusion for the damage shots plus Hallowed Ground for anti-magnetic), Rubico Prime (obvious), Sarpa (reduce but not remove armour with certain number of Shattering Impact shots); using the Vazarin focus for lure maintenance because Oberon's focused more on the area of Hallowed and the strength of Smite Infusion.
-
1
-
-
21 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:
And then there's that, yeah. DE's approach suggests that they're looking at this situation from a balance perspective. That is to say, AoE damage potential as compared to non-AoE damage, as well as a normalisation pass between all AoE damage sources. Near as I can tell, the "But I like the risk of killing myself!" side of the argument is being entirely disregarded and given no weight of consideration. The AoE as DE originally presented them seemed aimed at reducing AoE potential while improving raw damage and removing extant mitigating factors. Which honestly, they should have done a long time ago.
Not to keep bringing up "other games," but that's more or less what City of Heroes did back in the day. People were pulling 50 Werewolves into a single dumpster and nuking them at the same time. After that, everything got a target cap in the 3-8 targets range, specifically to prevent runaway damage multiplication from large-scale AoE. Overkill could have gone with an AoE target cap, but instead they went with focusing the AoE towards the centre and weakneing it towards the edges. The self-damage threads might have brought explosive weapons to the forefront, but the balance pass isn't being done for sentimental reasons.
It would have been fine to use the stagger as a 'self-risk' exclusively for the AOEs without a drawback that deserve one (let's say, Sonicor et al). But that didn't need to come at the cost of self-damage on the weapons currently using it.
That way, we'd have another step-up subcategory to allow players to find the level of 'risk' they like, with all the reward balances treated accordingly:
1) Minimal risk (stagger) but lowest AOE reward
2) Moderate risk (all non-dumbfire self-damage) with moderate AOE reward
3) High-risk (pure dumbfire self-damage) with highest AOE reward
Sure there'd be some pushback for people currently YOLOing their way with things that would get added to 1, but that's a fair balancing change, not a wholesale mechanic removal (with total shake-up of balance) as is currently being ideated upon.
-
4 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:
My reading of the change was that the 20% damage bonus DE were proposing isn't being retracted so much as suspended. They seem to have grown worries of overpowering explosive weapons and would want to see what we do with them before they start buffing them. If explosive weapons remain underused, THEN we might see the promised damage buff, probably to everything but the Bramma. If they suddenly become meta and stay meta with the self-damage removed, then we might not see that. Honestly, though - I rather doubt the latter. Like I said before, explosive weapons are "neat" but don't really scale well. Removing self-damage will definitely bump their use, but I doubt they'll see much use outside of "for fun" hobby use. Expect to see that buff later down the line.
I've been observing the history myself when it comes to risk of overpowering, but like I said, that was only half of the lesson to be learned. With or without the damage buff, with or without the falloff, there's no 'fun' left in the weapon category with the changes intended. Without the real mechanical identity of risky explosives, for those who enjoyed them, it is at best going to become a mindless tool just like I might take Saryn and Ignis through any busywork exterminate or defense mission, just to get it over with. At worst, they're not even going to be good enough for that, with falloff and the mere inconvenient annoyance of staggers.
-
37 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:
Like the Ballistica is a pistol, yes, the point is that they're not designed to be ordinary bows and you clearly already know that, so what exactly is your point? Are you trolling right now?
See also: Searching 'sniper' in the Arsenal and coming out with a Miter and an Ogris due to the ammo type.
Can't just blindly point at one strand of Warframe spaghetti without thinking, or you'll never have a clear picture of where it comes out of the local tangle.
-
9 minutes ago, Test-995 said:
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)
So everyone makes an occasional mistake. Do you demand all enemies never to deal any damage because once in a while you happened to stand in front of a Seeker and his Kraken planted your frame on its back? No. You accept it and move on. Maybe you say that the Seeker, individually, has overtuned damage and ask for the balance to be addressed more in line with its counterparts (just like addressing the self-damage formula to a more appropriate risk-reward ratio).
We (who enjoy the risk and accept our mistakes) do the same with self-damage. If you're not willing to do that, you take steps to avoid it. There's no shame in playing a tank frame over a glass-cannon if you absolutely want to live. There's no shame in playing a rifle over a rocket launcher if you absolutely want to minimise the impact of user error.
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).
-
1 minute ago, Test-995 said:
Enemy EHPs are ridiculously dynamic in this game, even after the new update, balancing would be mess with such system.
It's not that different, you'll still die unless you are some robotics that have perfect accuracy, and that's unfair.
Not really. The upper boundary of our modding remains as it is. What we're expected to deal with, also, has a definitive boundary. We don't count endurance runs for any balance discussion.
The formula is easily manipulated to provide a line of best fit between having a survivable presence at lower-tier damage (where the player is learning the weapon) and scaling up to higher, eventually fatal risks at that boundary of expectation (player has mastered the weapon).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. -
1 minute ago, Test-995 said:
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.
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)
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.
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.
2 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:You can be as sarcastic as you want, it doesn't change the truth of this statement. The damage was simply not worth the risk, so the risk was taken away for the most part. That's how balance works. You were given a compromise proposal and you chose to respond to it with sarcasm, so I feel somewhat unmotivated to meet you half-way.
The damage wasn't worth the risk because the risk was linearly tied to it whereas actual modding is not equal (scale of Damage > scale of Survivability). The damage wasn't worth the risk because people were so busy crying over the fact they can make a fatal mistake that DE was disinclined to offer more damage (see Cautious Shot mockery).
Besides, if anything I was mocking DE's change, not your offering. Especially the latest one that completely kills off reward. I mean, sure, I was raising concerns about Tonkor Meta myself, but the second lesson of those days was the collateral damage that killed every other explosive because they didn't just give Tonkor the self-damage it needed immediately. A mistake now repeated by making all AOEs boring and mediocre because they won't just let the self-damage risk niche remain fundamentally, mechanically intact.
-
2 minutes ago, Test-995 said:
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?
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.
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?
-
2 minutes ago, Test-995 said:
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.
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.
-
6 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:
I'm personally fine with 90% damage falloff, as long as it's not linear. Quadratic falloff with that low a boundary could work
Or - for a similar breed of equation - you could just have 0% falloff and keep self-damage, making it scale properly for player output compared to player health. The only real problem of the damage is that it's a flat percentage of output, but our health doesn't have as many or as high of multiplicative factors as damage.
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.
-
2 minutes ago, (XB1)XG1anBl4derX said:
-> Niche preference
-> The "vocal minority" is supposedly the other 90% that hate this.
This post is garbage.
--> Niche preference.. of an equally niche portion of weapon options.
--> [citation needed]
At least you got one out of three statements totally accurate - self-identifying your post as indeed awful.
2 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:Can I just note that beams are the most boring weapon type ever and I wouldn't be at all sad to see them go away?
Absolutely. It helps illustrate the point how people can dislike some category personally and still carry on with the rest of the game regardless. And that there's a band of 'dislike' where you only wouldn't mind seeing them gone, not that you actively want them gone.
By previous categorisation of the opinion spread, this would put you in the category 2 out of 4 where beam weapons are concerned, right?
-
Just now, Silberon said:
So let me see if I got this straight.. You mean that if I use rolling guard properly in a way that I don't give a vulnerability window to enemies then it should be better.
It's more reliable - assuming you keep your energy and roll/re-cast your buffs properly, your effective health is always 16x the baseline.
Using Adaptation would vary from 4x (no Adaptation stacks, Link expired before re-cast) to ~80x (Blessing+Link active, Adaptation stacked), so it has higher potential but in practice you might have situational moments where you're more vulnerable.
I'd say go Adaptation, but I was trying to be comprehensive in explaining the pros/cons of each.
-
Performance: Adaptation
Consistency: Rolling Guard (used to compensate the window where you re-cast Link)
Generally speaking, Adaptation should prove superior, but it does involve more of a varying level of tankiness (25% beefiness during window of Link expiry/recast, plus the natural up and down of Adaptation stacks) than if you were relying on Link and Blessing alone (75%*75% = 16x effective health, and with proper Rolling Guard usage never exposing a window where it's only Blessing giving you effective 4x).
-
3 hours ago, Lone_Dude said:
What makes me upset is that its exactly HALF the fun. The removal of self-damage could be avoided if developers adressed some of the issues people bring up constantly. Even in this post you propose that ally collision should be removed - but it never happened, for some #*!%ing reason. I've also seen many people say that they would mind the self-damage, even in its insta-kill state IF our weapons were strong enough to warrant it. But someone at DE really doesn't like that idea so here's that. Self-damage is another victim of a lacking effort in manually balancing CATEGORIES of weapons. I hate it when such systems, are half-assed, for me its all or nothing - do it good, or don't do it at all. And it seems DE finally realized that they just can't do the "good" with self-damage in place.
Shield-gating probably plays a big part in the removal of self-damage too. I'm pretty sure that complaints about self-damage would die down with that system in place because I noticed that a lot of enemy encounters while I'm using an AoE weapon end in 1 strike - my strike lmao. I get the jump on the enemies, fire a rocket, they don't even get to hit me because I'm also in the air and enemies get the accuracy debuff(which will also get an effectiveness increase in a following update). Meaning, that I have invuln frames at the ready to defend me from either my own exposives or enemy fire in majority of cases
Some people might not mind self-damage if the rewards were nutty enough to justify it, but you have to remember that implicit pressure of being by-far the best output would also push people who still don't want to engage with it into feeling obliged to do so. Which is partly why I offered the other side of the equation as well. Bring the risk down partially, then people have less to complain about, so they can bring the reward up where it ought to be. Then, since the formula variables are easily tweaked, it's not a massive undertaking to account for that 'worthwhile but not obliging' bump in damage output.
Shield-gating I would actually argue should not apply to self-damage, though. It's too absolute, just like the 'solutions' of capped/percentile health damage. Shield gates should be for things that aren't under your direct control - like the historic Ballista no-scope one-shot which is why they have a delay and visual tell now - so that you can't just get blindsided and killed before you can react. Especially when there are units ludicrously beyond the common-sense power curve for their level (looking at you, Grineer Seeker).
On the other hand, since self-damage is the player's mistake, the player's trigger-pull, that's not a 'cheap shot' any more. It should be allowed to go right on through. Allowing an absolute gated freebie brings the risk of the gameplay loop of "careless self-damage shot hits gate, use alternate gun/melee until gated, repeat". It's a grey area but I don't think that's a positive loop since it still promotes that carelessness.Arguably, for the same reason, invuln frames should also not protect from self-damage. We can see hints as to why already with the Revenant/Bramma abuse.
-
16 hours ago, Klaleara said:
I mean, just because you like it, doesn't mean the majority would prefer it without self-damage (Which as far as this thread has shown, is majority dislikes self damage).
That's debatable. Also you have to consider the people who have no opinion either way, they don't dislike self-damage but they're not motivated to post about keeping it.
Maybe the minority who hate self-damage enough to strike it from the record is larger than the minority who actively want it to remain for one reason or another, but that doesn't make them an overall majority. Even some of the passing comments of positive responses are likely from people who didn't feel like it was a necessary change despite their own dislike, it's just, "Oh, neat, guess I'll try using those couple weapons again after all".
But as we've shown, that's at cost of a playstyle and to gain sub-10% of weapons. Plus balance concerns.
4 hours ago, Lone_Dude said:If our mobility options were limited, verticality-wise, THEN there would be a true challenge in positioning yourself properly. If maybe more maps had lower ceilings and were tighter, like Kuva stronghold, then it would be actually difficult to use self-damage weapons, since their area of use would be limited not by me choosing not to press "Ctrl+Space", but by actual design. Basically, I don't find it challenging or complex, I just find it annoying.
See, you say that, but according to many people who are so adamantly against self-damage existing, every tile in the game is a claustrophobic corridor where any explosive you shoot is going to be a risky one. Even if you find it annoying more than engaging yourself, at least you can take a step back and acknowledge that it's totally possible to use them safely.
Then again, pushing that boundary of safety is half the fun. It's just a matter of whether you can accept the result when you push too far and die by your own mistake.
You should probably chill a bit on that personal argument though, s'gonna get modded.
-
3 hours ago, Klaleara said:
Self damage is lame in a game where you move at the speed of lightning as far as I'm concerned. Especially when a weapons damage FAR out ranks your health in almost every case.
And to keep self damage for literally 1 Warframe (And a couple in the future I'm sure) is not a great way to basically nullify an entire genre of weapons for the majority of the playerbase. This thread alone is pretty evident that most people want/are okay with self damage being gone.
I personally look forward to playing with a lot of the weapons in my Arsenal that have been in cryo for literally years, cause they end up killing me far more than the enemy ever does.
"As far as you are concerned". Ignoring those who like it to suit your own opinion. Also, conveniently ignoring that I've suggested a way to address the health/damage scaling mismatch.
The warframe interaction is the least relevant line of reasoning, although Chroma wasn't the first or only instance (Trinity Link reflection and to an extent Nyx Absorb powering). Not everyone has to like every thing. Bows in general are probably comparable with self-damaging weapons, but because there's not a scapegoat for you to point at for them, it's quietly ignored.
"A lot" of the weapons in your arsenal? When dumbfired explosives account for <4% of options and all self-damage <10% (neither percentage including the entire melee suite on top of that)? Just because you don't like the risk of self-damage, doesn't mean nobody does. Just because you don't find it engaging to master not killing yourself with them (at least not any more so than enemies do) does not mean it's impossible to do so.
Should we next take all beam weapons out and make them all direct-damage hitscan rifles because an arbitrary subsection of the playerbase happens to not like the hard range limitations or held over-time trigger style? Or do we just accept that not everyone will use every item in the game on a regular basis?
-
2 hours ago, Fallen77 said:
If you are just going to ignore the fact that the many elements I already listed are 100% impossible to predict, and again ignore entirely that one-shotting yourself on a single missclick in a fast pace horde shooter is ludicrous, I can't do anything for you, you're just too far into denial.
I'm not ignoring the elements. They're just.. not impossible to predict. Arguably, even the risk of allies jumping in the path has an assessable element courtesy of the minimap showing locations. But I've agreed that might not be sufficient, and yet, the result is not the fault of self-damage, it's the fault of the allied collision which affects other things as well as self-damage.
3 hours ago, (XB1)ECCHO SIERRA said:Late to the party here but uh
1) chroma is a one trick pony in a bad spot to begin with. It isnt fair or proper for DE to drag down like 40 other frames so chroma can have 1 clutch. What chroma really needs is a rework.
2) it is also very possible to get blown up because of something that is 100% not your fault, such as an enemy spawning in front of you or a teammate deciding they need to bullet jump in front of you at exactly the wrong instant. Some people enjoy being able to use a weapon without feeling like they're going to be randomly killed by something beyond their control.
3) I dont think you get to bring up balance. If it was so easy to avoid blowing yourself up, then self damage shouldnt also be considered a significant con. Seems like you want to have it both ways.
But if balance becomes an issue because indiscriminate aoe spam becomes too prevalent they can nerf those weapons. The other points are just subjective opinions.
1) That's an opinion. The fact he currently benefits from self-damage is not an opinion. Certainly t's debatable whether that's an interaction worth preserving, but I was just including the objective part of it for the sake of completion.
2) Just because you don't want to admit fault, doesn't mean it can't be. The game gives you all the information necessary, whether you make the right judgement call on that information is not the game's fault. Allied collision is a separate factor which self-damage suffers from, but is not the root cause.
3) Why don't I get to bring up balance? Because you don't have an answer for it? Because you weren't there to experience when it happened before? If people are currently being oppressive with the Bramma, as I hear, by circumventing self-damage then removing self-damage wholesale is inviting far more problems than it stands to solve, while also removing an unintrusive playstyle niche. It's just not going to feel the same without actual danger on those shots. Staggers can be reduced away to insignificance via mods/abilities.
-
2 hours ago, Vharu said:
So you don't have the Bramma...
but here you say that you have used it in every other circumstance... 1
It's simple, the Bramma is why self-damage got removed, and it's why self-damage was requested to be removed. You haven't got one, you haven't used one - and you think just because you used a tonker or lenz that you opinion on this matter is going to be relevant to everyone using a bramma.
You couldn't even provide accurate examples in your formulas because didn't even know how much damage it did. Just stay in your lane ok, stop trying to revert a change that didn't effect you in the first place. Literally no one gives two sh!ts about self-damage being implemented if you take the Bramma out of the equation. 2Oh hear you go again with your list of terms and fallacies. Well guess what, Mass preference determines everything - your elections, what business thrive and what dies, everything from who rules what and what gets done. Herd mentality, capitalism, free markets, democracy, consumer culture - all of it governed by mass preference.
Call it what you want, but the reality is mass preference is a reason. Especially in the context of a game that depends on it's players to fund it's survival. The only fallacy here is your backwater thinking that would have changes that only appeal to your person preference while ignoring the wider player base. If you ran DE it would go bankrupt in one financial year - because "listening to the majority is a fallacy" - yeh good job mate.3Honestly, your accuracy is worse than the Bramma.... here you try come off as specific....
but here you make some absurd exaggeration of '400x' - are you actually nuts? 4
Well done, you have progressed from fabricating % values to fabricating multiplication values... you're not an armchair mathematician, you're a street gutter mathematician. Here, ill follow your example ey...
Roughly 74% wanted self-damage removed, comprised of roughly 200,000 participants and 48% owning a Bramma, the other 26% wanted it to stay. OMG thats a 3:1 ratio in favor of removing self-damage.... << is this the kind of BS you want to encourage by making up values?
99% of people use percent values incorrectly - it is a quantifiable expression, you don't use that sh!t on your feelings ok... I hope that makes you feel 62% happy.Don't put words in my mouth, especially not smug crap like 'quod erat demonstrandum' - bruh... again with the Latin... what is with you and these Latin terms. You're one of those guys that would ask someone to pass you the Sodium Chloride.
Why are you trying to impress me? I'll tell you what would impress me... if you actually had a point of reasoning among the sea of your opinions.Your suggestion describes the use of 'Cautious Shot', which already exists and does not change anything. << Honestly, focus on structuring English better instead of dropping in Latin terms and Fallacy labels. 5
Does Cautious Shot work on the Bramma? - No.
Did my suggestion actually describe Cautious Shot? - No6
Just give up mate. You never had anything more than an opinion and preference for something that has already been decided on. Then you resort to fabricating bias groups, minority/majority attribution to such groups, inaccurate percent values, exaggerated damage multiplications - when does it stop? You are literally at the point of speaking Latin because you have failed to present any reasoning in plain English. 7
....and just to top it off, when asked what your most significant reason is for implementing self-damage, you reply with something that amounts to no more than 'because i want it'. 8 Well here is a gross contradiction. You want self-damage to remain, but out of the same mouth you also diminish the value of mass-preference? So if your desire here to keep self-damage was accepted by the majority - well I guess that would make you apart of the 'bandwagon fallacy', as you put it. Fortunately your sentiment and wishful thinking is among the minority choice - evident by the changes that will take place very soon. 9It's no longer worth the effort in splitting up the quote so I'll just insert footnote numbers to make life mildly simpler while I deal with the simple minded.
1) Every other incarnation of self-damage I have used. Your own wilful misinterpretation does not change what I'm stating. If it's not wilful misinterpretation then your reading comprehension needs some serious work. The only way you would see an immediate contradiction in that statement is if you were looking to force one, any sane mind would simply realise that is vanishingly unlikely to be what I meant.
2) Again you're failing to grasp a simple concept. The formula works dynamically for all values of D. The weapon's damage is the input. Self-damage is the output. D is not a control variable in the formula. Also, it's only your own completely fabricated opinion that nobody cares about self-damage in relation to any of the other ~19 items that exhibit it.
3) You're projecting the 'fallacy fallacy' onto me here. I never said that the majority can't be right in any case. Bandwagon fallacy simply states that popular opinion alone does not make an argument objectively the most correct one. You want to cite politics? Sure, then you can abandon your argument considering the myriad instances in history where the masses made a choice they came to regret.
4) Since I know you love me calling out your fallacies, I'll spare you this one. Anyone who was making sensible argument (which you are clearly not even attempting) could see that the specific value there is irrelevant. The point is "much bigger impact = more pressure to use it = overrides personal preference". In that hypothetical world where a self-damage weapon was just given ludicrous damage outright while self-damage was always fatal, you would feel obliged to use it. Which isn't what either of us want.
5) Clearly I can use better English than that of which you are capable. But I'm not using that to obscure an argument, since I try to find a different way of explaining any point that fails to come across. The latin there, incidentally, is just what's usually abbreviated as QED and means 'that which was to be demonstrated'. You proved my point and defeated your argument by acknowledging the Bramma (at least) would be broken without self-damage.
6) Yes. Current self-damage is a percentage. Cautious Shot reduces that percentage to a 1/100 factor of itself. Therefore, asking for self-damage to be a (very small) percentage of the weapon's damage output is equivalent to using Cautious Shot currently.
7) Just because you remain wilfully ignorant of my reasoning does not mean that it has not been presented.
8) Not accurate. Strawman. Misrepresenting my argument to make it possible for you to attack it.
9) You can't bully my argument away with presuming the outcome. It's not impossible that DE will see sense before the mainline ships, nor is it impossible for the mistake to be rectified afterwards. Sorry, we're going to keep pointing out the problem whether it suits you or not.
Warframe Revised: 100x Restore Blueprint Megathread
in General
Posted
Mostly it's the inconsistency of having limitations and new restrictions on some energy sources, when they're not even the most freely abused ones.
It also devalues build choices and is generally unhealthy. As an example, Itzal losing its own spammable Blink only mattered in any real amount over what all wings got to replace it because restore spamming overrode the energy costs. Otherwise you just wouldn't be in the 'wing long enough to recoup costs - you'd go from point A to B then be dry of energy when you tried to progress to point C.
Since we know that Primed Streamline is considered forbidden (see when Chinaframe snuck it in briefly and had to cut it back out) then obviously they don't want energy to be too inconsequential. If you choose to go with Blind Rage and no Streamline/Fleeting, then you should have to accept the outcome of not being able to upkeep forever. Balance isn't irrelevant just because it's a PVE game, you know.