TheLexiConArtist
-
Posts
3,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheLexiConArtist
-
-
10 minutes ago, BloodyEy3 said:
Thats even more the reason why i am absolutly against removing niches/ snyergies with certain stuff. if the niche/interaction is too broken (--> trinity self dmg map whipes with links) this should be addressed, but not through removing said intereaction. If someone wants to set up his whole build to open a new playstyle for sth he should be allowed too
Although slightly tangential to the topic at hand, it should be observed that Trinity Link was not a 'self damage goes through Link' problem, it was a 'additively reaching 100% resistances' problem - which also applies to enemies, especially in sorties with modifiers and the never-stated fact that sortie gives Shield Ospreys the added bonus of increasing the resistance of linked targets.
If Trinities had to respect (and handle accumulating) some self-damage while playing a Link-reflective build, it should have been considered fair game. It's at least just as 'interactive' as Saryn is, at that point.
-
12 minutes ago, Fallen77 said:
But I'd like you to tell me, what arguments in this thread doesn't apply to any of what I said ? (I only read first page by now, don't know what thread'll look like when I'll finally post this) Many are giving WAYS to make self damage work, and I didn't say anything against those. But I haven't seen a REASON to want to keep selfdamage that I did not cover already. Come on, show me someone here that had a reason to want selfdamage back other than :
_sad chroma baby
_leet player too cool for school that can't accept others not blowing themselves up for stupid sh#t
_forum warrior defending his case from 2 years ago
Most people here, from what I've seen, are just giving methods to make selfdamage work better, not giving reason to why they want it back. WHY do you want it back ? (If you do)
How would the game be made worst by removing Sdamage ? How would it be better by keeping it ? I sure as hell have not been presented any other argument than what I listed so far (assuming you can read between the lines and get the big picture), but I'll be happy to be enlightened.
This is the known as 'moving the goalposts'. Arguments that, in order:
1) A frame playstyle greatly benefits in reliability from being able to self-damage
2) It is very possible for players to not blow themselves up (if they care to master this ability) and that some people enjoy the feeling of danger and mastery involved
3) A historic precedent exists that shows removal of self-damage can have enormously terrible consequences for balance, game health and inter-competitive build flexibility
All give fair arguable reasons why the game would be worse for removing or better by keeping. Just because you wish to disagree with the outcome does not mean these reasons do not exist.
You should also be careful to not misrepresent the second reason as "you all need to get good". There is a difference between insisting others change (incidentally, removing the self-damage risk playstyle is exactly this) and in simply stating that it is a possible result, whether any individual chooses to or not - and it's fine if they don't because there's plenty of other options to better suit them.
-
Just now, Vharu said:
Ok, so in a sentence... what is the single most significant reason you want self-damage to remain? And also, what is your alternative system attempting to provide?
Single most significant? I was around for the Tonkor meta and I don't wish for its return.
Alternative system? Give DE a flexible formula that can be tuned to better reflect the different scaling of player HP and player Output to make risks more appropriate.
(Additional note: Read the post just before yours which quotes my OP for why simply adding enormous rewards to justify the current risks could be a bad idea)
-
Just now, Vharu said:
Mate, it's ok to say you use Chroma and thats why you want self-damage to stay... you wouldnt be the first, and if you really want your protest to get traction, thats the crowd to appeal too for support. Maybe I know what you're talking about better than you do 🙂
I've individually used Nyx and Nyx Prime each more than I've used Chroma and his Prime combined.
Chroma Prime is my sixth least used Warframe. If you want to consider all the Eidolons I've run, I was Trinity, Harrow or Oberon pretty much throughout.
I forgot this even affected him at all, to be honest.
-
2 minutes ago, Vharu said:
..Chroma Eidolon..
Chroma .. chroma .. Eidolon .. chrom,..
.. Chroma. ..Chroma ..
..Chroma ..I don't even use Chroma unless I have a memetastic Arbitration buff for him. On the other hand, I use the Kulstar in the radius of my Frost's Snowglobe and don't put myself on my back with every shot, so... maybe I know what I'm talking about?
I see you're using the highest quality straw for that man you're building to argue against.
-
12 minutes ago, Fallen77 said:
It's a good thing that it was removed.
For those "so good at the game", it won't change a thing for you right ? Since you can predict at all time when your kavat is gonna TP / jump in front of you right ?
So yes, it's a very good change, no reason to cling onto selfdamage, no reason to barther for keeping some selfdamage, appart for those that previously went high and beyond to prove how pivotal it is to WF gameplay loop (spoiler, it's not).
Does it change the thrill-appeal of bungee-jumping depending on whether the surface underneath your jump is solid, water, or 5 metre thick foam? Is it the same to skydive out of a plane as it is to grab a wingsuit and go into one of those recreational facilities and let an industrial fan blow you up to a hovering position?
It's completely different. What value is there in having 'gotten good' at not blowing ourselves up with those weapons if suddenly everyone can use them without blowing themselves up? It's devaluing the effort put in to master them while also removing that thrill of danger.
Is it any more pivotal to the Warframe gameplay loop to have 100% of weapons available to you at zero risk than 91.7% of weapons? Not at all. It's just..greed.
-
8 minutes ago, Aldain said:
Self damage can rot in the same dumpster as the unavoidable Lich backbreaker revive tax.
I don't care what anyone says, anything that kills or can kill a player instantly for reasons that outside of a players control or ability to predict (allies running in front of you and RNG Requiems respectively) deserves to die a brutal Doom-level death.
So remove the ally collision, not the self-damage? Everything else is objectively within your capability to predict and control, and allies getting in the way is annoying for everything else without a reason to connect with them, not just the things which explode instantly upon doing so. Even the majority of self-damage sources either don't explode or give you time to react if an ally crosses the pipe. Stupid to remove self-damage wholesale from that argument.
-
1
-
-
13 hours ago, (PS4)IndianChiefJeff said:
Cautious Shot. Even when maxed out, it still won't prevent you from taking self damage, that's why band-aid mods like that are rightfully despised. What even is this illustrious reward from using explosive weapons? You don't get increased resource drops from enemies killed by explosive weapons, you don't increase mission RNG when wielding explosive weapons, you don't suddenly make Plat rain out of the sky when firing explosive weapons, there's no feasible advantage when less dangerous options are just as good if not better.
In addition to the issue of backlash for buffing them as previously mentioned (after all, how many people still complained that they simply could still kill themselves after Cautious Shot, both originally and with its buff?) there's another factor you have to consider when judging the viability of the 'reward' angle.
If the self-damage explosives were the de facto optimal damage outputters by a large margin, to 'justify' their self-damage, it would become an indirect obligation to use them when you do need to bring the Biggest Guns you have. Not unlike how snipers are the de facto tools for handling Eidolons, with only a couple of exceptions.
Since it's important that you're not forced to play around self-damage unless you want to do so, the reward can't be too much incentive by itself. This is partly why I suggested using a formula that would treat the problem of mismatched scaling between our health and damage output. Reducing the risk partially, after which the reward can also be bumped up as appropriate on the weapons that aren't currently in their rightful power grade.
It's kind of like Excavation is right now. You "can" play those missions without a defensive Warframe ability, but the drills are so fragile that you're tantamount forced to bring one along, unless you like losing every other drill because you happened to sneeze and let one enemy through. The reward (protectiveness) is so strong it overrides any personal disinclination.
-
It only ever mattered for one month. Literally one month after the Tonkor release we got the update which introduced the Bullet Jump, which completely supersedes that mechanic in every way. It was a (bad) excuse for why the Tonkor had no self-damage and why the awful Tonkor meta happened.
-
1 minute ago, _Urakaze_ said:
hell you don't even need that. Just throw a percentage based damage and be done. like 50% of your max health as true damage for slow firing explosives, and something like 10% for automatics like acceltra
Nope, that causes other problems. Unmodded Loki should be at a greater risk from an explosive at the feet than a 6000 health Inaros. You don't see bomb disposal squads rolling up in shorts and t-shirts, do you?
Cautious Shot could still exist (at a heavily nerfed level, because 99% would be colossal overkill after the scaling) for fine-tuning the result of the equation to fit a player's taste in frame, but realistically, if the numbers are in the right place for the downscaling, there's always a point of 'usable with non-fatal risk' as well as a reachable all-out 'fatal overkill' tier.
-
2 minutes ago, VanFanel1980mx said:
Because as explained above, it is not just people spamming projectiles, there were legitimate issues beyond the player's control, no player has really that much power over DE and you know it, they have ignored player feedback when it suits them so much that it is almost a meme.
Ally collision is a legitimate concern, but it also applies to things which aren't self-damage. It's just a more immediate negative feedback than having your buddies obstruct your otherwise well-aimed shots and having to take another one to kill the intended target. Therefore, removing self-damage is not justified for this circumstance.
(Not that DE have had the best track record treating causes versus symptoms. Trinity Link meta comes to mind, where they could have stopped players and enemies alike from stacking 100% damage immunity through additive resistances. Enemies still can become immune to our damage arbitrarily, Trinity just can't self-damage through the link any more)
-
7 minutes ago, Jiminez_Burial said:
My issue with this is that a damage scaling/limiting calculation is something anyone with a Year 9 (or 8th grade if you're in the US) knowledge of mathematics would have no trouble writing into the code. Basically all the solutions I can think of could be implemented in a simple line/block of code that's nothing more than a state check/if else statement with an accompanying equation. When it comes to implementing the changes, they're all within a few minutes of each other and all need to be tested in a way that properly written exception throws would make it a menial task.
In the spirit of daytime television everywhere, here's one I prepared earlier!
On 2020-02-28 at 10:33 PM, TheLexiConArtist said:I am just an armchair mathematician, but some time ago I suggested the equation thus:
D * ( 1 - ( X / ( D ^ ( Y / D ) ) )
Where D = DAMAGE; X = DIMINISHING FACTOR; Y = DIMINISH THRESHOLD.
Tweaking X and Y in that formula can squash and stretch the damage progression drastically.
Example:
SpoilerY = 100; X = 1
D(500) = 355 self-damage (appx 71%)
D(5000) = 783 self-damage (appx 15.7%)
D(1000000) = 1380 self-damage (appx 0.14%)
At the maximum diminishing factor of 1, we can see that massive outputs are still 'survivable'.
Y = 100; X = 0.99
D(500) = 357 self-damage (appx 71.4%)
D(5000) = 825 self-damage (appx 16.5%)
D(1000000) = 11366 self-damage (appx 1.14%)
Reducing the rate of diminish allows fatal self-damage to scale down into higher accessible levels.
Y = 30; X = 0.99
D(500) = 159 self-damage (appx 32%)
D(5000) = 296 self-damage (appx 6%)
D(1000000) = 10410 self-damage (appx 1.04%)
Reducing the point of diminishment lowers the floor of reduced damage at small values, while preserving most of the upper-boundary risk (depending on rate) at higher values.
I'm not saying that's a perfect formula. But it's a proof of concept.
Although some of that rarest actual intelligent discussion in a previous time I've brought it up did point out that it's not quite as simple as throwing that formula into the code block that hits the player with their damage. Because of Multishot, it has to be baked into the projectile in advance or the multishot would allow bypassing the diminishing return.
But it's still fairly simple to solve. Projectile multishot already does a similar function with crits - the gain from the critting projectiles actually spreads evenly across the non-critting projectiles as well, white and yellow numbers from the same single trigger pull appear to deal the same damage. In the same way, the 'total outgoing damage' on trigger-pull can be calculated and divided among the projectiles (possibly also over the damage events for triggered self-damage weapons like Penta, though this could be trickier in the spaghetticcode, and isn't strictly necessary).
-
Self-CC has been suggested no more or less than other solutions in the past, it's nothing new, DE have just caved into the complaints and are repeating a past mistake on a grander scale.
It's not impossible to keep self damage as actual damage while accounting for the disparity in player and enemy health. It just needs the output to be fed into an algorithm that applies a diminishing return to the result instead of being fixed as a static percentage of the outgoing damage.
Status and 'stability' buffs are in enough places that the result of this change will be literally zero punishment even in the 'worst case' scenario. Even without them, the thing about being knocked down in a 'crowded' area is.. You've just shot down an explosive in that area. By all rights, most of that opposition are also either knocked down or incapacitated while you are.
It's not a punishment. It's a minor inconvenience at best, completely ignored at worst.
-
1 hour ago, Scar.brother.help.me said:
I barely see folks with self-damaging explosives. I do see a lot of Ignis/Kuva Nukors/Catchmoons/Fulmins/Amprexes/Shotguns and so on, whatever deals with crowds with no risk, and they do their job much better. Even since Cautious Shot appeared, still no tonkors, ogrises around. I do own Ogris with a pretty good riven, and still it becomes a barely OK weapon. It is good, does low to mid lvl missions. It can become good with a specific build for specific enemies. But that's it. It can't compete with Ignis and such meta aoe. Even without self-damage they will become fun but barely good. Somewhere at the level of Bows after last boost - playable, fun to yourself but no big contribution into a team work.
Not every weapon has to be usable in every situation. Thinking about those conventional bows, for instance. Do you see them all that much more often than explosives in your public matchmaking?
Visual presence is not a black and white thing either. There are other factors, other potential explanations. I might exhibit high Saryn usage but that's just because I solo ESO with her. People have their 'busywork' loadouts - see Ember before she was gutted and frankensteined over her multitude of rewaorking - and their casual enjoyment loadouts. Obviously, the chaining weapons and the Ignis take over when the task is just to push through a wave of enemies and players might not be in a 'challenge me' mood.
Then there's the ally collision quandary. I'm a primarily solo player anyway myself, so I can't judge much anecdotally, but what if others who do use risky explosives just choose to do it when they're not matchmade? Can't hit an ally if you're the only one in the squad, right? Moas, kavats and kubrows notwithstanding.
-
2 minutes ago, Sylonus said:
If you've already agreed that camps 1 and 2 are technically the majority in that, "They would rather self-damage not exist, but don't care enough to post about it." you've already lost the whole vocal minority argument in the first place, that's thrown around when the sentiment about a thing is supposedly against what's primarily being said.
I don't think it's any more greedy to ask for something to be changed rather than asking it to remain the same, especially since the plans have already been made to change it, regardless of how much one is "forced" to be engaged with, though force is a horrible word to use here, this is a video game, nobody is "forced" to do anything in the true sense of the word, however, one is "forced" to interact with these weapons at the very least to gain mastery rank from them, if they want to achieve as much mastery as possible, which I think the vast majority of players do.Nice strawman argument there. No, Category 1 and 2 are not 'they would rather self damage does not exist', that's the un-numbered minority group's insistence alone. Category 1 and 2 are, respectively, 'Self-damage does not affect me (though I personally dislike the mechanic, I just don't engage with it)' and 'Self damage existing does not bother me and I may or may not engage with it as a result'. Neither of them would rather self-damage does not exist. Even category 1 just keeps their personal dislike personal instead of projecting it onto the game with far more alternatives than necessary to make it a non-issue.
You can also put a weapon in your loadout and master it yet never shoot a single round out of it. Even without a squad, it's possible to just level through objective affinity (e.g. spy). There is no 'self-damage weapon only' Sortie modifier. DE does not force you to engage with the risk. We who DO like it are not demanding you use it anyway, if you DON'T like it.
Warframe is designed 'wide', not 'tall'. Variety is the core. 9% of primaries and secondaries having self-damage, or less than 4% if you only count pure dumbfire, is not grounds to remove that niche.
-
3 minutes ago, Sylonus said:
This is a pretty hilariously gross mischaracterization of the majority of posts I see on here, there's nothing actively greedy or self-entitled about wishing X/Y/Z weapon worked one way (without self damage) at the very least no moreso than the ones desiring they work the other way (with self damage), this forum is largely based on feedback, people are saying their opinion, on how they wish things to be, that's basically the whole point of being here, you're welcome to disagree and state your desires. But stating those who want things to work another way from how you want them to work are any more greedy or self-entitled is, downright laughable
That's the thing about vocal minorities. They're vocal.
All those category 1 and category 2 people generally aren't posting except maybe once or twice throwing a passive opinion that they just don't mind it, or maybe see the reason for it, whether they like it themselves or not.
Category 3 are also a minority, only because it's been the status quo, we've not needed to be vocal - except in response to those entitled complaints.
You honestly think it's not greedy to insist on removing an entirely optional playstyle from the game and those who like it, when at no point are you forced to engage with it and it consists of less than 10% of the arsenal content?
One which has also historically been shown problematic for balance when ignored, no less?
-
1 minute ago, Sylonus said:
The best way to avoid self damage has historically been, just don't use that weapon type, there are plenty of other weapons that do just as much damage, even in AoE with 0 risk, so there was never a reason to use that type of weapon, until the Bramma, and even that's debatable.
Vocal minority? Where are you drawing these statistics from? Why do you believe that the majority favors self damage? Because I can tell you anecdotally, that couldn't seem to be further from the truth. And somehow I doubt you have any better statistics than I that you're privvy to. And the only ones who do (DE, with their usage statistics) well, we know where they decided to fall.
Let me clarify: The minority that are actively greedy and self-entitled enough that they must have access to that <10% of weaponry options without the risk they dislike - at the cost of an entire gameplay niche - versus the combined majority of those who:
- Actively dislike self damage but just use alternatives and are content
- Are completely ambivalent to self-damage and might or might not randomly use them
- Actually enjoy the thrill and gameplay niche of something that will drop you if you misuse it.
Category 3 is not the majority. Category 1 or 2 might be the absolute majority, definitely are when combined, and absolutely outweigh the greedy complainants when it's those 'remove or make functionally irrelevant' votes against the 'keep it (for all I care)' of all three categories.
The best way to avoid it IS to not use the weapons. Nobody's saying you have to 'git gud'. If you don't enjoy it, just use the rest, but you can 'git gud' if you want to and enjoy the process. Why can't that be maintained? It's not even impossible to fix the scaling problems, it just takes a formula for self-damage rather than it being a simple fixed proportion.
-
3 minutes ago, Scar.brother.help.me said:
Did not read. I disagree with the title. Reward is toonlow, explosive weapons are not so great in terms of damage to have a drawback. They already have low magazines.
If you actually read you'd see a whole host of details.
Like addressing the scaling problem.
Like addressing allied collision problems.
Like observing how improving reward has been generally disinclined due to backlash complaints of people who don't actually care to engage the playstyle at all (see Cautious Shot, 'lol gg I still kill myself') -
5 minutes ago, Sylonus said:
DE wouldn't be making this change if that entire class of weapons wasn't pretty dead as is, they have the stats I'm sure, why do you think this is happening?
This is an attempt to revitalize the weapon class. My guess was the Bramma was the last ditch effort to see "How good can we make self damaging weapons and them still not be used?" I suspect it's the only one that sees much use of all, and it wasn't high enough to convince them not to make the change, it's the only one that I expect to nerfed after the change, all the others, I think will start seeing more play again, but not crazy amounts.There's a heavy enough barrier to entry and variance in the Kuva weapons that any of them would make a poor last-ditch decision metric. Besides, you know anything that clusters out is going to be even more challenging. If they wanted an absolute it'd be a super-buffed Ogris-like weapon (with an easier accessibility than the Kuvas).
It's just catering to a vocal minority and their associated bandwagon jumpers. Self-damage is avoidable. You can use a Kulstar in the radius of a Snow Globe without murdering yourself with every shot fired. It just takes.. you know.. mastery.
-
9 minutes ago, Shy0 said:
one shot self kills should not be a thing. the self stagger/knockdown that they are adding should be enough to discourage people from releasing explosives in their own face in serious gameplay due to the vulnerability to enemy fire. i've loved explosive weapons from the start (always liked the penta and angstrum and seeing things go flying into space) but 90% of the times i kill myself, it is because of dodgy hitboxes or something jumping in front of me i.e. a teammate or stupid pet.
if you want to retain some existing drawback(s), either keep status procs or make self damage only a percentage of your frame's hp/shields. i use castanas to trigger eclipse on my night time mirage for eidolons, so keeping status procs would mean i don't have to retire a build (and radiation procs are still a risk to the team). taking a portion of hp/shields off per self damage hit is fine with me; you can still eventually kill yourself if you're careless but what i don't like is instantly dying because some dumb dog jumps in your face in the middle of combat.
I have already stated that ally collision can be considered a problem and addressed (without removing self-damage as it applies to more than just self-damage. Hate teammates eating any projectile).
'Dodgy hitboxes' are probably on you, though. You're taking a risky shot if you're in too enclosed a space for hitboxes to possibly interfere in general, or you're deliberately trying to skirt your payload just around an obstruction. That's still your own judgement call. The inert box of level geometry didn't jump out into the path, and doors.. you know can close and are proximity based. Don't shoot in a doorway you're not holding open yourself.
Percentage caps don't work because then an unmodded Loki survives as many rockets to the feet as a full tank Inaros, and that's just ridiculous. Guy in bomb suit can survive, guy in shorts and a t-shirt almost certainly dies. Pretty sensible.
-
4 hours ago, CopperBezel said:
Well, to make actual self-damage work as opposed to self-instant-kill, you'd need to either do, or avoid, some funky math. Right now, player and enemy health are on completely different scales.
Since players and enemies start with very similar numbers that diverge as they respectively progress, there's also no simple multiplier or formula to translate between player durability and damage dealing.
So there's no percentage of a weapon's damage that's going to more often than not translate to "injure but don't kill". And it can't be just a percentage of the player's health, either, because we want an Inaros to be able to shoot himself in the face and shrug it off more easily than an Ember, and Excalibur somewhere in between the two.
Actually, there are simple formulae that do the job. See the examples I gave using my own with differing control-number variables? You're right that no flat percentage works, and Cautious only pushes a decimal point over a couple places, but with something that's not entirely unlike a derivative from the classic sort of 'diminishing return' formula you see on Armour effectiveness, you can effectively and flexibly create a progression from High proportion, Survivable damage while learning a weapon up to Low proportion, (eventually) still fatal damage for a fully modded and presumably player-mastered weapon.
16 minutes ago, Sylonus said:I'm extremely happy that self-damage is gone.
Chroma doesn't even have to be a loser for it, could leave self damage on Concealed Explosives and Thunderbolt alone, the damage from those mods never scale to an unhealthy point, so I see no reason not to leave them in for Chroma to have a self damage tool.
That said, if they're insistent on removing all or none, I give that up gleefully to be able to use explosive weapons without killing myself. (Or being relegated to playing Revenant or Nyx only for them.)Self damage just feels woefully out of place with the pace and styling of this game. And the risk was not remotely worth the reward. (except perhaps in the case of the Bramma, which I do likely expect to get nerfed, sadly, after this change.) But for all the other weapons, I'm very, very happy for the changes.
See the post containing 'net gain' counts? Less than 10% of weapons benefit from axing self-damage for the sake of people who don't care to use them (and that's fine, you can get good, but nobody's saying you have to). Less than half of that for outright 'unforgiving', dumbfire explosives. That's not a significant proportion of the weapon pile to warrant, 1) putting the game at risk of imbalance i.e. old Tonkor/Mirage-Simulor meta, and 2) removing the real risk playstyle niche from those of us who don't mind it as is or actively enjoy it in a way that mere mildly annoying staggers would not provide.
-
10 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:
I'm going to throw more numbers out here. Forgive me if I missed something while scanning the list but it's illustrative of the point regardless.
Net gain for removing self damage:
8 / 242 (~3.3%) completely dumb-firing explosives become no challenge to use.
12 / 242 (~4.9%) triggered / delayed / distance-arming explosives become even more trivial. (I think it's 12? Counting things like the Zhuge Prime and from what I vaguely recall, the Corinth alt fire having arm-distance self-damage.)Less than 10% of the primary+secondary weapons in the game get any sort of benefit. Less than 4% were 'unforgiving' to begin with.
Net gain for keeping self damage:
8 / 8 (100%) of high-risk weapons keep their high-risk playstyle for players who wish to engage with it.
12 / 12 (100%) of mid-risk, more forgiving weapons keep their middle-ground playstyle for players who like a little spice with a safety net.
222/242 (91.7%) of weapons without associated personal risk stay available for players who DO NOT like putting themselves at risk.Why should greed for <10% of the available weapons remove 100% of the risky player's gameplay?
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, Aadi880 said:
I wonder if self-staggers counts as knock downs.
They said it'd scale up to a knockdown depending on the severity (and/or weapon?). So basically, you're not just incentivised to use the most damaging option available because you won't ever kill yourself, you'll be more capable of modding away the imitation of risk with them too.
Although there's also
-
9 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:
I think for what @Argentum_Oculi is describing to be applicable, explosions that affect enemies in the same way would need to affect players in the same way, too. And I'm aware that the Staticor charge shot had self-damage for a day once, and it's the only really obvious outlier where the only distinction is that the projectile is not a physical explosive device of some kind.
I don't know, I would think that for fans of the self-damage, I'd think you'd want it to be implemented a lot more broadly and in a way that was mechanically rather than just cosmetically consistent. I feel like where self-damage is as of now before the update, it's in a pretty awkward middle position that would naturally want to resolve in one direction or the other.
It's a blurry line, but applying it more broadly would need a lot of those circumstantial judgement calls such as Simulor and Cyanex where the gameplay rule has to take precedence over consistency. Predictable, avoidable self-damage is okay, randomly murdering yourself with things moving arbitrarily or naturally happening at risky borderline proximity is not. It's like those Operator scaffolds that can damage the Operator themselves - you just get hit all the time unless you max the explosion distance and backpedal constantly. (Put elemental arcanes on one of those amps and you'll see the difference - I'm fairly sure kiddos have heavy resistance to Void damage.)
I'm not against the alternatives existing. In fact, the alternatives existing, provided that balance is maintained in some other way, only makes the argument against wholesale self-damage removal stronger.
I don't want people to 'git gud' with self-damaging explosives. That's not the same thing as saying that it is possible to 'git gud' if you choose to travel that path. If a player doesn't like the process of getting good at not blowing themselves up, that is fine too, we welcome you to just use things you like instead.
None of us - not players who want to keep self-damage, not DE with the game itself - are telling you that you have to engage in personal-risk weapons. There's no 'rockets only' Sortie modifier.-
1
-
DO NOT remove self damage. It is a legitimate drawback and a niche some players welcome.
in Weapons
Posted
If this was supposed to be a clever rebuttal, it failed horribly.
We're not seeking to gain, we're seeking not to lose.
We're seeking not to lose the viability of all other weapons when self-damage is lost (Tonkor meta).
We're seeking not to lose out on a gameplay style that nobody is forced to engage with (unlike the core systems of Parkour and the entire Damage System).
And pretending the majority are either of our extremes is just foolish. It's not the majority who enjoy the dangerous gameplay for what it is, but it's definitely not the majority who absolutely insist on having access to that small portion of weapons without their core-design drawback factor either.
The silent majority are just the people who just don't use them if they don't feel like it, without demanding that the game has to change and remove a playstyle to suit their whims.
Should the person who doesn't like being a support frame insist on Trinity, Harrow, etc being just.. removed from the game? Or do they just tend to use the kind they prefer instead, and leave the supports for situations that call for them or players who enjoy them regardless? Because I'm fairly sure the player majority favours damage-type frames or tanks.