TheLexiConArtist
-
Posts
3,174 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by TheLexiConArtist
-
-
2 minutes ago, p3z1 said:
Meaning you are tunnel-vision-ing on Ivara's invisibility compared to loki's invisibility alone, making these 2 into one-trick pony builds. That's a bad direction from the start since Warframes are given 4 abilities for a reason.
Might sound like an @ss, but not every Warframe is tailored for every individual. I can't blame you for not being satisfied with Ivara, but some people don't find satisfaction is using other frames. Well, just to add in, I hate using Mesa, and she's great according to some Tenno here.
It's more a case of considering the ability from without and within, and identifying the sheer mountain of burdens that it suffers unmatched by just about anything else on any warframe. There's nothing spectacular at all, and it's not even good as a "sum of its parts" because of the myriad deficits you have to operate around.
Having said that (and in regard to your second statement) Ivara is still my go-to Warframe. But for all her strengths, it doesn't stop it feeling cheap when I lose half my energy supply to the nearest Arc trap or have to make the call between Prowling and losing a ton of extra energy, or trying to survive in the open for a short while just because something left a status effect on me.
Just now, ljmadruga said:In warframe, invisibility=invincibility.
The fact that Ivara can become invisible almost indefinitely has to come with a lot of drawbacks. It’s fine and balanced as it is.
Meanwhile, even if you don't count a Loki potentially needing only Siphon's regen... Octavia exists. Would you call "occasionally needs to crouch a couple of times to refresh a timer" on par with Ivara's drawbacks? Or even the 0.3 seconds Loki spends visible?
4 minutes ago, robbybe01234 said:Get yourself a Rakta Cernos. It's pretty cool.
65 energy occasionally, rad (still trying to treat a symptom not cure the problem's cause)
4 minutes ago, MystMan said:And as for the energy crisis part, you just shoot a cloak arrow in the floor in a quiet corner, stand in it and disable Prowl and drop an energy restore or two. Voilà! No energy problems while remaining invisible. Her arrows are excellent support for teammates.
sigh
1 minute ago, Bouldershoulder said:Try rolling mid-jumps
That'll be the next nerf. Walking only. Final Destination (in a few hours)
-
2 minutes ago, (PS4)MrNishi said:
Cloak with or without Navigator still works for Sentinel/Companion to still have near Loki-quality Invisibility with Prowl as a back-up or to steal loot when a preferable target is nearby.
For the record, navigating the cloak arrow back around onto myself is why I said "if it were easier" instead of "if I could" when referring to just self-bubbling instead of using prowl at all, on the chance it's still possible to stick self or Sentinel.
2 minutes ago, Dragazer said:Just LOL @ Ivara being a "one trick pony"
Just LOL @ asking for prowl buffs.
Word of advise, run rakta dark dagger with augment. I"m assuming you are already running something with CL anyways for the sleep arrow finishers. The syndicate proc restores energy even with prowl channeling.
That's an extra 65.75 energy occasionally and requires me to be in full-melee and using one specific weapon ever, yeah? Sounds like an absolute blast. Turns out that 65 energy isn't going to save me much trouble next time I have to roll by a couple Shock eximi, or god forbid a Venomous that leaves lingering ticks of extra on-damage drain just because I existed nearby once upon a time.
"unsatisfying to use" does not equal "absolutely useless" you know. I prowl often enough, but it's still a constant pain in the arse when I have to.
-
1 minute ago, p3z1 said:
Let's not compare 1 skill against another BASED on number of positives and negatives against itself. Let us compare the WHOLE WARFRAME in general.
Loki - Supports allies by either reviving while invisible or disarming enemies.
Ivara - Supports allies by producing invisibility bubbles, producing loot, stunning enemies (by sleep), and reviving allies by being invisible.
Point goes to Ivara for supporting allies.Loki - Deals damage by stealth multipliers and guns alone.
Ivara - Deals damage by stealth multipliers, artemis bow, guns (preferably silenced), and navigator. Navigator can be used to make interesting set-ups with projectile weapons. Ivara can also play safer from a distance due to these, if used well.
Point goes to Ivara for damage-dealing + safety.Loki - Low energy costs, no channeling. Regenrates energy by energy siphon, energy orbs, among others.
Ivara - Channeling, though low energy cost. Regenerates energy only from pickups when prowl is active. Looting can roll energy orbs.
Point goes to Loki on energy if you get bad RNG. With good RNG, Ivara.
Argument - Energy plates.Functions of other abilities do not invalidate the failure of one ability to provide a satisfying gameplay experience.
Also:
- Quantify the benefits of huge-range disarm with infinite duration (and also confusion) compared to relatively smaller range and temporary Sleep which also breaks at 50% of current-health (numeric, so automatically fails in case of viral procs). Quantify loot production (single target, time taken, requirement to stick to target and target to remain alive).
- Fair.
- If Energy Siphon is able to cover Loki Invisibility, then additional looted energy orbs ALONE must cover >100% of Prowl costs to gain more energy with Ivara than Loki. (Not happening, without Energise). Difference is even higher if player is using Zenurik Focus (50% regeneration bonus per orb not available in Prowl). Energy restores apply to all warframes and are a symptomatic treatment, not a cure for the cause.
9 minutes ago, (PS4)MrNishi said:Loki's Silent Augment does not silence explosions like Lenz while Ivara Prowl does.
Also you should have all of Loki's Invisibility cons listed.
Loki sets off all lasers, Magnetic Sensor barriers (was a larger issues when Magnetic zapped all energy to 0. Staying consistent with complaining of how ability/stats used to be on the game rather than focusing on feedback of current ability/stats)*
If you only want to complain about Prowl...that is fine but it is not Ivara's only means of Invisibility and thus it is hard to see this thread as being taken seriously.
Those are not cons to Loki's Invisibility as they are not related to the function of the skill. This is why they are not in Ivara's cons list as well; the new feature of ignoring them is instead listed as a unique pro.
The fact that Ivara has other sources of invisibility actually causes the problems with Prowl to make it feel more unsatisfying to use, not less. If you might ever consider shooting a line of Cloak Arrows along your travel path instead of Prowling, that suggests that Prowling has a significant problem obstructing it from being the appropriate, satisfying option for mobile invisibility that it should be.
-
Just now, (Xbox One)Tucker D Dawg said:
- Kill stuff & open crates - with an efficient build, TOGGLED (not channeled) invisibility without energize can last almost indefinitely. And, on the rare occasion you find yourself almost out of energy, shoot invis arrow into ground, stand in bubble and drop a pizza.
- So there are silence mods. Sure, your weapon might do a touch less damage, but your invisible and can just stand there pumping lead. And you get the damage buff to make up for it.
- Is this new? We don't have this on Console.
- So does desecrate etc... its another roll of the dice.
- <Can't steal from MVP> so?
- <Can't steal with multiple Ivaras> So?
- And still full speed rolling, and wall jumping. Basically infinite full speed invis would be broken (see old Naramon)
- Energy orbs are unreliable (even while stealing - which takes time and is single target). Energy restores are circumvention of a problem, not a solution (you could argue why ever have ANY efficiency, because restores are available). Still a direct burden to the ability.
- Remains a burden to this particular ability. Compare other invisibility users (and her own cloakbubble) who have zero requirement to sacrifice a mod slot to become silenced, nor become exposed by using anything that is not silenced.
- It's not listed anywhere ingame, but it's always been part of the ability.
- Desecrate has an imperfect loot chance but is completely unaffected by Power Strength. If you had Overextended on Nekros and your Desecrate chance dropped from 40% to 16%, but Blind Rage didn't take it from 40% to 80%, would you not be unsatisfied?
- Other looting abilities generate extra loot from some targets that Prowl still fails to steal from (today I noticed this on the Silver Grove specters).
- This is a new drawback, and was the reason the previous bullet point was introduced in the past. Having both is just pointlessly excessive.
- Loki and Octavia provide infinite full speed invisibility, therefore it is a legitimate and significant additional drawback for Prowl.
-
15 minutes ago, EDM774 said:
So you want a stealing reskin of Loki.
Ivara is just as good as she is now no changes needed. Seems to me you need to work on your energy efficiency and conservation tactics.
p.s. since arcanes drop like hotcakes from eidolons, you'd get your hands on an arcane energize set quite quickly now.
No, I want to not be punished six ways from Sunday for trying to use an ability.
Literally even pre-mobility-permitted Spectral Scream had less drawbacks for use. If it were possible to easily do so, there would be literally no point in using Prowl over sticking yourself with Cloak Arrows if you wanted to go around unseen.
Players shouldn't be forced to use a certain Arcane to patch an ability's terrible excess of burdens.
I didn't say every drawback should be removed, but it's just not appropriate as it is.
9 minutes ago, Fishyflakes said:Ivara is pretty trash and your post makes a good point, but we're gonna need something cool to replace Prowl though.
I wouldn't say she's trash, Quiver carries hard though (and some niche uses for high strength Artemis Bow and Navigator).
But like I said above.. Sometimes I wish I could just turn the bow around and attach bubbles to myself instead.
I'm not sure it needs to be replaced. It could still be useful and satisfying, if it had around half the downsides trimmed off.
I'm thinking:
- Able to steal from all enemy types again (now one-per-customer applies) just the same as Desecration can.
- No more extra energy drain from melee strikes and damage taken (or at the very least for the latter, stop it from flooding out when eximi/procs/arc traps/fart clouds happen)
- Give something back in the mobility/speed department, or let loud guns not cause exposure for no reason.
- No 'dud steals' would be nice, since that's just a slap in the face. Or give a chance for higher-strength to steal more than one loot drop. Fair and equal treatment!
-
So how about we take a nice long look at the pros and cons of the ability and actually balance the books a bit. Please. Ivara is practically a one-and-a-half-trick pony by this point, and it's a shame.
Prowl
Pros:
- Consistent Invisibility while energy permits (channeled)
- Headshot damage is multiplied by 1+(0.4 * Power Strength)
- Steals additional loot from a single target over (2.5 / Power Duration) seconds.
-
Augment allows Ivara to pass through some security barriers
- Notably some Spy security is not subject to this immunity and will still trigger (Sealab tower-vault laser 'platform', generic Grineer vault with motion detectors sweeping over console)
Cons:
-
Channeled nature removes all sources of energy regeneration, functionally hard-limiting possible uptime in most use cases where energy pickups are not abundant
- Typically requires Arcane Energise sets to circumvent enough to allow 'true permanence'
-
Invisibility is briefly broken upon usage of nonsilenced weapon
- Not listed in Abilities pane
- Does not require re-casting
-
Additional energy is drained while moving
- Not listed in Abilities pane
-
Additional energy is drained for every tick of damage taken
- Not listed in Abilities pane
- Includes rapid-tick damage sources e.g. Arc Traps
- Includes aura damage e.g. Eximi
- Includes status proc damage (which may also be stacked ticks e.g. slash, toxin)
-
Additional energy is drained for every melee hit (per target, not per swing)
- Not listed in Abilities pane
- This also applies to many finishers, which deal multiple hits of damage and trigger this on each
-
Stealing has a chance to fail at <100% Power Strength
- Is now listed in the ability pane, but wasn't for a long time!
- Cannot steal from High-Value Targets (bosses, minibosses and some special enemies)
- Cannot steal from a target that has already been stolen from by an allied Ivara
-
Player is significantly slowed whilst Prowling
- Except on Ziplines
- Augment also assuages this slow somewhat
-
Sprinting and Bullet Jumping causes loss of invisibility
- Requires additional energy expenditure to re-cast
Woo! That's a big list of drawbacks.
So we have 4 benefits in total for using this ability (1 from augment) and 10 drawbacks limiting its functionality (1 lessened by augment). Additionally, the major function of the ability (invisibility) has shared purpose with other abilities in Ivara's kit; Cloak Arrows in her Quiver and Navigator (while actively in use) also provide invisibility.
Compare this to the Warframe who is so much the poster child of the mechanic that his ability is literally named such; Loki's Invisibility provides the following:
Invisibility
Pros
- Provides (12 * Power Duration) seconds of Invisibility for (50 * (2 - Power Efficiency)) energy
- Duration-based ability permits all sources of energy recovery while effect is ongoing
-
Augment confers Silencing to all weapons (and tools mining laser) fired while in Invisibility
- Alleviates certain problem cases of crossfire
Cons
-
Some enemies will attack near loud gunfire despite Invisibility status
- Problem removed by augment
- Set duration necessitates re-casting, causing brief window of vulnerability
So yes, here we have fewer benefits... but 2:2 (unaugmented) is still much better than 3:10, and with the augment Loki boasts 2:1 in favour of benefits while Ivara is still lingering in the 4:9.5 area, still having mostly drawbacks hampering the actual usage.
And since Loki does not channel, he can persist indefinitely from Energy Siphon alone with enough Power Efficiency and Power Duration*. So no, the fact that Prowl is channeled is not beneficial in the slightest, in comparison.
* 180% duration is all you need at 175% efficiency. 21.6 seconds of Invis giving 0.6 energy/s from Siphon = 12.96, covering the 12.5 energy cost.
Conclusion
Prowl has excessive limitations, and due to shared purpose with Cloak Arrows, fails to carve a strong enough niche within Ivara's kit to remain satisfying. Each of its benefits are directly intruded upon by the inherent drawbacks; Stealing is limited, can fail with reduced strength without any counterweighing benefit at higher strength and is only 'one-per-customer', the Invisibility is comparitively weak and more costly than alternatives, and the hindered mobility even makes the headshot bonus more difficult to properly utilise. Not even the augment is safe, as there are some notable instances of it failing to provide its sole function (besides easing the burden of slowness).
The ability is unsatisfying, overburdened and ill-fitting. It needs drastic improvements to make it appropriately rewarding and satisfying for the player.
-
39 minutes ago, DatDarkOne said:
I did a test for a friend just to see if Prowl would still steal while in Operator mode. It showed me two things. That it works and that it was stealing quite quickly from multiple enemies. Even with my 95% duration build that makes stealing a little bit longer than normal.
So I can honestly say that stealing from multiple enemies isn't really that long at all. That is if you have the patience to not kill enemies for farming anyway. Otherwise just build for more duration to speed it up.
Duration Ivara + Void Singularity Operator, new meta! ..Now if only it didn't require having the damage pulses from Void Static to access Singularity, we'd be golden. :v
-
29 minutes ago, TotallyLagging said:
Oh, and you know what's funny? You can still 'ruin the game for new players' by slapping more range at the cost of some strength on your old WoF build anyways. The 2x WoF damage will cover the reduced power strength from your build. The change achieved nothing.
This is relevant to "but it was totes a buff guys c'mon" claims.
So let's say an Ember in higher content still needs the range coverage for survival purposes, and obviously seeks damage.
Old Ember: Leaves WoF running with base 400 damage. Uses Accelerant to cover the additional damage needed. 2.5 base multiplier: WoF = 400 * 2.5 = 1000 damage/tick.
New Ember: Includes an Overextended in the build to compensate the WoF range (we'll ignore the added cost). WoF has base 800 (once scaled) reduced by 800*0.4 = 320 from Overextended's negative strength stat. The Ember uses Accelerant to multiply the damage. But oh no, our multiplier double-dips on that reduced strength. The Accelerant multiplier is reduced by 2.5 * 0.4 = 1. WoF = (800 - 320) * 1.5 = 720 damage/tick
If we don't compensate the range... you're working in1/8th the total effective volume and costing twice as much.
Yes, you read that right. 1/8th. Because it's a spherical area.
4/3 * pi * 15^3 = 14137 m3
4/3 * pi * 7.5^3 = 1767 m3
Such buffs yo.
-
I'd be fine with this if they also made Prowl less of an absolute chore to use to compensate. Four ways to drain energy, forbidden parkour, slowed speed, direct antisynergy with any nonsilenced weapon and a channeling drain to preclude energy regen effects all at once is awful.
Just for that last note alone, consider that a Loki can literally keep Invisibility up indefinitely with the energy regen from Energy Siphon alone if built to do so. I have a 246% duration/175% efficiency build that requires 13 energy per 29.5 seconds; 0.6 energy/s from Siphon multiplied by 29.5 = 17.7 energy gained. No extra costs for moving, getting hit or using melee. No exposure when shooting unsilenced weapons, and an actual useful augment to silence those weapons if need be to avoid attracting attention.
Prowl is terribly overburdened and deserves improvements.
-
16 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:
So instead of lowering the damage output of the tonkor,
They took away the fun aspect of a grenade launcher, and made an unpredictable grenade, that is one of the few grenades in the game you can't detonate at will, and made it insta-gib players.
Totally meaningless when they nerfed the simulor to be a fair weapon, and yet didn't add self damage. When they add self damage to the Torid, the simulor, the sonicor and the staticor you might have a point. But you don't.The damage of the Tonkor was addressed when autoheadshot was removed (which also direly hurt every other launcher as well, thanks for that).
The 'fun aspect' was a pathetic excuse to keep an objectively broken weapon the way it was. Functionally, it was obsolete within a couple of months of release because Parkour 2.0 happened. We all suggested making an alt-fire to allow grenade jumping for funsies - but one that wouldn't do damage (TF2 sticky jumper says hi). No risk-no reward. Novelty intact. Maybe a proc on the enemies for your troubles.
I've also mentioned that they can't add self-damage to the Simulor because of its operational range (which I love how you keep flip-flopping on depending on how it suits your argument at the time).
Neither the Torid, Simulor, Sonicor nor Staticor are conventional ordnance. Self-damage was argued to be consistent for all other sources of conventional ordnance. This definition also doesn't just mean "does blast damage", before you go citing the Quanta cubes.
I consider the Sonicor a particle-spamming ragdoll irritation machine, and the Staticor is a retina-destroying atrocity, but that's beyond the scope of this thread...
16 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:brb gonna switch to a Mirage with literally any weapon. Hall of Mirrors, Eclipse, and augment. Going to enjoy insta-killing anything I can see
fixed that for you
Joke's on you though, 'cause I don't have to see it with NavIvara to kill it. I can just as easily take the explosive projectile down a corridor, around a corner, and obliterate the nearest Grineer tea party all the same. :v
Seriously though, remote-controlled nuclear warheads from strength Navigator + launchers is fun as hell for a gimmick mission run. Try it sometime.
11 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:
You could easily fix this using some creativity.
A: Buff Launchers damage, then for every additional enemy the launcher hits, it does reduced damage. 1 enemy hit = no damage reduction. 3 enemies hit 85% 5 enemies hit 65% damage reduction.
Or
B. be lazy, and just split the damage launchers do to every enemy hit equally. Tons of MMO's do this kind of scaling.OR
C: Balance launchers as their own weapon category able to deal absolutely consistent AOE damage in a radial area. Because an explosion doesn't care much for how many people it greets along the way.
oh wait
MMOs scale like B because it'd cause collateral effects in other situations that would lead to a strict segregation of the players by the presence of AOEs or lack thereof. Either it's balanced for the damage on many targets and massively underperform for less-populated encounters, or balanced for few targets and a massive overperformer on many-target fights. Without damage split, the encounter design is limited if these player inequalities would exist - because players are generally locked into their skillset.
That'd be like having only one Warframe ever and being stuck never able to bring a Frost for a defense/excavation because you wanted to be beefy yourself with Inaros once upon a time.
Also damn son, use multiquotes next time?
-
9 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:
Cool, I think we're mostly on the same page.
A few things worth emphasizing:
- Clearing wider crowds with shotguns is more a matter of controlling your range, which is directly analogous to controlling your range with launchers to avoid self damage.
- I agree that crit sucks mechanically. The fact of the matter is, though, that it simply scales better. A great example is crit opticor (sans Riven at 50%) vs. Teralyst. The crit Opticor chews through it fairly quickly, whereas the pure damage Opticor - despite doing drastically more damage on paper - takes at least twice as long to break even a single Synovia. This is on a very slow-firing non-automatic weapon, mind you.
- I agree that simply removing self-damage from launchers is not the ideal way to go.
- True, but at the same time the implicit results of working around the shotgun range to hit targets in a wider area is a reduced net damage output per target hit, by a combination of pellet spread (a pellet can't simultaneously be on the left and right sides of a vertically bisected cone) and some measure of falloff, which some people seem to be wanting to conveniently forget. Notably, both drawbacks are not something launchers suffer, trading consistent area and damage for the lack of additionally concentrated firepower in narrower and/or closer range.
-
I wish I could spawn the Eidolons (even if it was only in the Plains captura scene. DE pls?) to test weapons on them consistently at any time. The maths always seems strange and arcane through the layers of damage reduction. Unless you refer to the benefit gained from Volt shields (and better critting with Adarza buffs) then there's no solid reason why the on-paper damage shouldn't actually work in that case.
-
At the same time, those are good examples of the disparity that having mods and mechanics which solely benefit critical threat weapons without any counterparts that solely benefit non-critical weapons causes. That and headcrits are why crit is always king.
- The sole exceptions being charging Mag's magnetise bubble and object-health targets.
-
At the same time, those are good examples of the disparity that having mods and mechanics which solely benefit critical threat weapons without any counterparts that solely benefit non-critical weapons causes. That and headcrits are why crit is always king.
- I acknowledge that the "shallower scaling" solution is a little more burdensome to program but it is better than removing damage threats (even if replacing for procs), having static-number damage threats, and I believe also better than percentile-damage threats (unthreatening at best, unsatisfying that you can't mod durability to counter it at worst) as seen in other suggestions.
-
1 minute ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:
Want me to show you how outperformed a launcher is? I can grab my 8 forma tonkor that has gathered dust, and my one forma tigris and show you the power difference.
brb 323% power strength Navigator Ivara with an unmodded ogris
-
1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:
Okay, it sounds like we agree on that point.
Still, where is this 30% statistic coming from? Is this an official DE statistic or just a figure of yours for the purposes of discussion? Also, am I correct in interpreting your statement as you would scale self-damage dealt as a portion of the weapon's total damage and scale it non-linearly with boosted damage from mods?
30% is (or at least historically was) the consistent approximation of base outgoing damage to base self-damage (and mods exponentiate both just the same). I believe the Secura Penta might have been marginally lesser proportioned. Obviously I'm discounting things such as the original Tonkor from this.
I don't know if this has been carried through the weapon tweaks though. It was an unwritten rule at best (hence approximation).
The problem with reducing that proportion further is that it further reduces the 'learned respect' when freshly picked up, although this is minor because MR-floored drain now introduces weapons at a potent level these days, but more importantly that it just raises the bar statically. If the weapons are buffed further, if better mods arise, then doubling the threshold of murdering yourself is only a patchwork solution.
Your interpretation was correct. My theoretical solution was to utilise the 'proportionally reduced effectiveness' (whatever the value, so hypothetically 30%) to not only define the base of the self-damage but also how much its damage would scale up as well.
Long story short, as calculated in previous threads, comparing 30% downscaling against flat 15% selfdamage becomes significantly the better option as modding increases as the shallower exponential growth curve outweighs the flat halving of selfdamage values.
The main downside of the approach is that it logically wouldn't be able to compensate multishot.
1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:I disagree. Point a Penta and a Tigris at the same crowd of enemies, and the crowd will typically die in both cases. Launchers are not nearly as distinguished in terms of combat role as you are suggesting. Yes, you have to be more careful before pulling the trigger. No, the results are not drastically different in most cases, even if the mods used to accomplish the results are different.
I agree that simply comparing paper stats is an exercise in futility, but this is also a discussion of the weapons' practical applications. You point a relatively inaccurate shotgun with punch-through and everything in that general direction dies when you pull the trigger. The same goes for launchers, but
a) they stop being as effective a lot sooner, and
b) you can kill yourself if you aren't painstakingly careful.
There isn't really any justifiable reason for this beyond "realism."
I don't presume to know everyone's modding decisions, but I can definitely say that the Tigris Prime in my experience has abundant stopping power (and punchthrough is nice).. but unless you're dropping another mod slot on Vicious Spread, its effective width leaves a lot to be desired.
Honestly I believe that removing autoheadshots from explosions was a bit of a kneejerk reaction. That was a lot of the reward inherent to launchers; it was only when combined with the lack of risk in the Simulors and Tonkor (plus the headcrit mechanic making it even more unreasonably highly reward-skewed when other explosives had negligible crit chances) that it was overbearing to other weapon options.
1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:Ok. Except without crit the launchers will continue to fall off severely relative to other comparable weapons. That's simply what happens with flat-damage weapons. I would agree that crit should not arbitrarily be a superior method of delivering damage, especially when they can be made guaranteed, but within the existing system buffing launcher crit makes perfect sense.
Again if we look on-paper (or in my case, on spreadsheet because I'm sad like that) that's absolutely true. But I speak mainly for myself when I say that the worst weapons to use are the ones that are half-arsed critical threats. I'm a man who likes consistency... and even though the numerical difference is the same between a 100-damage shot that has a 50% chance to yellowcrit to 200, and a 150% crit chance yellowcrit 200's chance to become 300 is still 100 either way*, there's just something about seeing white numbers when you've built for crit damage that is just unsatisfying.
In an automatic weapon you don't notice the difference so much. But when every shot counts... the RNG of whether everything falls dead or stays alive to dunk you is that much more imperative.
Or, in other words, "Either make it reasonable to hit >100% crit (without riven) or just make it base damage".
* Yes I'm aware of the proportional difference and that the analogy isn't great.
-
2 minutes ago, DiabolusUrsus said:
Don't lose sight of the main point, which is that launchers are supposed to do outstanding damage to justify the risk of self-damage.
The problem is that they are out-damaged by a multitude of other weapons (Tigris Prime is just an extreme example) that DON'T have self-damage and have similar crowd-clearing capabilities.
Either the damage needs to be proportional to the risk, or the risk needs to be mitigated to match the damage. I don't really care which.
If the damage gets boosted, you can keep your tryhard "skill to not blow yourself up."
If the risk is reduced (not saying self-damage should be zero, mind you) more people will use those weapons.
I don't think either outcome would be a bad thing.
As I said (and repeat in every instance of this topic that I belabor the point upon), the risk does scale too high despite its continued, valid reason to exist. The original calculation of (approximately) 30% of outgoing damage is no longer accurate to the EHP of enemies that players are routinely asked to deal with.
I've even made suggestions as to how the rebalancing of risk could be addressed - an easy yet linear way (simply decrease the proportion further, e.g. appx 15% of outgoing) or a more challenging, yet (in most cases) better scaling way (scale down the effective modding curve as well as starting at the 30% of base damage).
We could compare apples to oranges for on-paper DPS and get nowhere for days. A Tigris Prime better compared (post-MR-rebalance) to the MR12 Secura Penta boasts triple the sustained damage output (S.Penta 441 vs. Tigris P 1225 at base stats) but they are used completely differently. In some cases, the Tigris (modding required for punch through) might be able to land a significant part of its damage, even after falloff is accounted, on more enemies such as running single-file down a hallway. In other cases, like enemies mobbing in a more open space, perhaps the Penta's radial explosions will hit more targets more easily (and all for the same damage base).
Point remaining, they're functionally different and it's important not to be blinded to the nuances of practical scenarios by the theoretical numbers.
Oh, and for the record, I consider the weapon rebalance a joke as far as launchers were concerned. The fact crits affect self-damage (another questionable facet that could easily be removed) should have made them think twice about putting any of the new stat budget there... and I feel like the category is underbudgeted even still.
-
1 minute ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:
But here's the kicker. Launchers are made to be close range weapons, and yet you get punished for it. Shotguns get a minor damage penalty if you use them at longer range then they are supposed to be used.
If you use launchers the way they are supposed to use, you are penalized with self damage that is a bigger threat to you then any enemy you are fighting.Or, if you look at it from the sensible perspective, you're clearly not meant to use launchers the way you imagine they are meant to be used because there is a blindingly obvious reason that's not their designated operating range.
8 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:And Shotguns aren't limited in their range like Launchers are. Tonkor, Zarr, Simulor, Don't have anywhere near the range. You are lucky if a grenade launcher fires farther then 15 meters.
I'll admit I don't particularly use the Tonkor so I'm not familiar with how it feels after the recent change but I'm quite sure it has more than a 15m range... and comes with a fancy-schmancy aim guide to let you see where it'll arc. Pretty sure whichever way you slice it, the 'nade moves at a higher velocity than 5m/s (old 3s-on-shooting lifetime) or can punt farther than 10-15 m before it contacts a surface if you can aim it right (new 1s-after-first-contact lifetime).
The Pentas are trigger explosives, so there's no absolute definite requirement for you to shoot them much further than their payload covers (but they do cover a good 30m before touching the floor with a decent arc shot all the same).
The Simulor's deployment range is the closest thing you have to an argument here and that thing was just a terrible design from the ground up.
It's visually intrusive, audially intrusive, and used to be mechanically intrusive. We can't, shouldn't and as you know, didn't give it self damage due to its firing mechanic and AOE radius (effective range and AOE actually are overlapping in this case) but it couldn't be focused on the direct damage of merging orbs either because then it's just mindless PRANG PRANG PRANG spamulor gamplay.
Currently useless or otherwise, it isn't missed.
Meanwhile, people are using the Lenz a reasonable amount these days. Risky and rewarding. The suicidal levels of self-damage are mitigated by the delay and cues (visual bubble, proc audio) that precede an explosion that might accidentally have dropped a little too close. I hear a few people took a new liking to the Ogris, especially ith the Napalm mod to tweak it.
Just because they're not used to exclusivity doesn't mean they're not used. Just because they're not your cup of tea for comfortable use doesn't mean nobody enjoys using them with that inherent risk still attached.
Instead of advocating change because you don't like them personally, consider that you're probably never going to like every weapon or even category of weapons.
I don't like heavy/slow melees, but I don't demand that my fasts are given all the range and damage benefits, or that the heavies are sped up. I just.. don't use them as often.
-
4 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:
Except when a weapon has too many cons, its effectively worthless. The only "pro" of launcher weapons is the small area of effect.
My Tigris does over 60,000 damage per trigger pull. Has 2.1 meter punch through and realistically does damage over a much larger area.
It also will never kill me. Trust me, I tried. Even went Limbo, froze my bullets in mid air and stood in front of them and let them fly.
Compare the Tonkor's 325 blast damage to the 1,560 damage of the Tigris Prime.
Even if the Tonkor crits, it is only doing 812 damage. Just over half of the Tigris. You won't have enough mod slots to fix the tonkor into a useable weapon.
Meanwhile, building off the Tigris strengths, I have a 60 meter line of death on my Tigris.I like how you're hard comparing the stats of a Mastery Rank 5 launcher to a Mastery Rank 13 Shotgun.
So if we drop down to a base Tigris, which is post-rebalance still an MR9 weapon, we already dropped it down to a discrepancy of ~25% when comparing Tonkor crits to Tigris buckshot (812 vs. 1050) instead of the ~90% from the Tigris Prime. Let's also not forget that a critical threat weapon mods better (for direct output) than base-damage equivalents.
Launchers also don't suffer damage falloff like shotguns do. And they cover a wider area than almost any shotgun. You're cherry-picking your arguments to suit the conclusion you're already decided upon.
They are fundamentally different weapon categories with fundamentally different use cases.
Self-damage does scale too high currently, and we've* never refuted that point, but the answer is not to return to the days of noob-tubing past. Launchers should be threatening to the user if misused, but guaranteed suicide is something that should exist only at the uppermost levels of output (or for people who don't dfensively mod their Warframes to mitigate the risk). Noclipping explosives on allied targets (excepting usable cases, such as possibly using Adhesive Blast to make friends into mobile AOE threats) is also something that we should see added, among other QoL tweaks.
*Those of us that fought to have appropriate rebalancing for the Simulors and Tonkor selfdamage
-
See, people who say things like this:
24 minutes ago, Walkampf said:I think Ember is stronger than before.
I mean, WoF got +100% dps... for a Warframe which is essentialy designed all around the thought of dealing damage doubeling her main attacks dps is a pretty big thing.
Anyone who uses Ember as a damagedealer, as she was intented to be, should like the idea of the damage increase.
Are the exact kind of tunnel-visioned people that caused this atrocity to begin with.
Double base damage on WoF? Oh great! Too bad we're now paying for that power strength to compensate for the range scaling down into Toes On Fire.
And if we compensate that lost range with lessened power strength statistic (courtesy Overextended) she's losing out on more:
- Fire proc rate on WoF
- Damage and (augmented) buff stats on Fireball
- Damage Multiplier on Accelerant
- Damage on Fire Blast
Sure doesn't seem as grand now does it?
Meanwhile, Equinox takes over the passive cutting down of paper mobs, Mirages with Ignises take over the "bullet jump through the fissure mission for auto-clearing" and literally nothing beneficial for the already only mediocre Warframe that paid the ultimate price.
-
6 hours ago, Epicmonk117b said:
Kayll, I don't know if you know this, but many of the explosive weapons in Warframe can still kill you even if they explode on the far side of a room. Sure, in most games they're an instant kill if you shoot them at your feet, but in Warframe, they're far more destructive than that. This is why the Tonkor was the only viable explosive weapon for so long - it was the only one that wouldn't kill you if you fired it.
No, it was the only used explosive weapon because it had zero risk while still granting obscene rewards. Especially before the explosion autoheadshot was removed, because headcrits.
Plenty of people using the Lenz now, and that's still self-murdering.
You're vastly underestimating the difference between "proportional usage over a base of >100 other options" and "used to the point of near exclusivity of every other available option".
Old busted Tonkor was the latter, rivaled only by the spamulors, and we don't need either of those again.
-
4 hours ago, Himenoinu said:
-
So, I should spec for max range ignis and always carry it with me, just in case I pug with a "press 4 and brain-afk" Ember. Ignis is a broken weapon, btw, when you can scorch the enemy through walls and even solid rock (was laughing at it in a defense map on Venus). I mean, some of the Ember players' behavior is so entrenched on mindlessly using WoF, that I had one wiping the team and the escavators repeatedly on a sortie with radiation hazard.
-
Now regarding your last paragraph, any warframe that can clear an Io or Akkad map with one ability is overpowered and needs to have that skill - and possibly its synergies within the kit - looked at.
-
Banshee's resonating quake is currently rendered pretty useless, her unmodded skill has the mechanical and destructive effect of throwing a shoe towards the enemies head, while her kit lacks any viable damaging capabilities and sports no syngergies at all.
Equinox and Ember are the other two frames that I played that need more attention.
-
To avoid Ember's WoF negative impact on gameplay (not afkplay), the easiest solution (true to what Banshee got) would've been to make the skill unspammable targeted with an aoe of 25m, with short duration and extra effects (like corrosive ticks) poured in for good measure, to "better control a choke point". But it's not what happened. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but skill synergies do exist in Ember's kit and WoF did receive a damage buff at a now upkeep cost of... 6en/sec - which is easily manageable given she's mobile at all times. 15 meters radius is still big enough to hold any tower (true, not all 4 at once), defend any objective and still annoy any player looking to smash or shoot things in run&gun mission types. WoF is still a very powerfull ability, usable and abusable. It can get better (if, say, the accelerant would synergize with WoF's range and effects).
- Lastly, people pointing out Ember's frailty should check the only frame they despise (yeah, the one that had a bigger d...amage area). Stats and skill kit, both pre and especially post-changes, make Banshee the favorite loser in a survival challenge.
I'll leave Equinox be, even if her Maim had the exact kill-joy mechanic and range as Ember's WoF
-
No. I'm saying that it's an option to do the same thing with more range than Ember has, against the same papery enemies and without a target limit. See it all the time in relics, something like a Mirage tossing out flames and still lower MR players are left in the dust. So it's really not a 'solved issue' by destroying the WoF range.
-
Can't most AOE frames do that? Using the same ability over and over is still one ability, as the channeled aspect is totally irrelevant as previously shown. Is using more than one ability any better? See Saryn molt-spores - happily clears out enemies at large distances whether or not the player knows they're even there when used right.
-
Banshee is more intrusive on any defensive mission type than Ember is on any mission. You don't need to deal damage when the stagger-lock basically removes the gameplay for everyone in the squad just as much. Over a much bigger radius. 15m base range is aggressively average.
-
If the Ember is afk then they're not progressing through the mission. If it's a defense mission to promote non-movement, then there are better-scaling and more-intrusive alternatives already. Spam is spam, all World on Fire does is save some wear on the 4 key. You can build a Frost to throw cheap, high-damage Avalanches with the same base range as WoF every couple of seconds. Add cast-speed and/or know how to momentum-cast and there's the same outcome.
Also, 6 energy per second is not sustainable in the slightest, outside of abusing energy restores or Arcane Energise. You, and most others, are probably mistaking this circumvention of energy economy as a reason that other stats need to be changed. But the cost increase -> damage increase that is planned would be acceptable, if they left the range alone. (It'd still be a soft nerf for other reasons, but at least the books would be balanced.)
- Banshee has plenty of crowd control even without needing high power strength or augments. And she's getting to keep the absurd Quake range, so she's even better. This line is nonsense.
-
So, I should spec for max range ignis and always carry it with me, just in case I pug with a "press 4 and brain-afk" Ember. Ignis is a broken weapon, btw, when you can scorch the enemy through walls and even solid rock (was laughing at it in a defense map on Venus). I mean, some of the Ember players' behavior is so entrenched on mindlessly using WoF, that I had one wiping the team and the escavators repeatedly on a sortie with radiation hazard.
-
43 minutes ago, MuscleBeach said:
Once again, if you listened to the stream you would have heard the line" With Mesa, at least you have to aim". And once again, that's a different issue that needs to be addressed. Quit comparing one issue with another and saying" See look, it's ok!"
World on fire. Half the energy of whatever AOE ability you're thinking and then basically nothing (3 energy/s) to keep it on. Deals 400 damage per second to 5 enemies AND 400 damage every 2-5 seconds to enemies randomly. So 28 energy to deal 800 damage instantly in 15m. That's already better than a lot of nuke abilities, which is why there's the 5 person cap. So every 5 seconds, you spend 15 energy to deal 2000 damage (which is as much as the strongest nukes in the game) in about the same range as other nukes. And that's not including the random plumes. So what exactly is less effective here?
They didn't have to aim, they got nerfed. WoF doesn't have to aim, it's getting nerfed. Mesa DOES have to aim, not getting nerfed. Listen to the stream. Mesa may even get nerfed some day and Peacemaker requires aiming. So once again, what's your point? That mirage had to press more than one button? You're not making a case here. That just makes WoF look even worse.
I'm just going to repeat myself: Quit comparing one issue with another and saying" See look, it's ok!" They're clearly trying to stop this.
This is what they're doing and you're not proposing any solutions for the parts you don't agree with. Nor are you even commenting on any ideas that actually were constructive in this thread. Exactly what are you doing besides this?
Just because it was said by the devs, in a stream, does not make it true and accurate beyond any criticism.
I'm allowed to give the feedback that the range reduction is wrong and totally unwarranted just as much as you're, unfortunately, allowed to post things like comparing the net total output of an AOE to the individual target damage of other AOEs and say that "A > B therefore A is no less effective".
And if you think 3 energy per second (while also invalidating energy regen) is 'nothing' then you're probably either banking on Arcane Energise or Energy Restore abuse, neither of which are unique to Ember and should not dictate a balance change for her over any other Warframe. Other frames with non-channeled AOEs to spam get the benefit of energy regeneration. That's already a price paid for channeling, which you seem happy to ignore (and allow DE to forget).
Mesa barely has to aim, pretty much as little as Mirage arguably 'aimed', and that just goes to show how completely detached from consistent logic the stream commentary can be.
Comparitively she aims more than the aimbot predecessor required, yes, but pointing 50% of your entire field of view in the general direction of enemies (and the ability to hold it there, not even reactively triggering damage) is hardly a burden of aiming.
There appears to be no point in discourse with you because you're just going to Texas Sharpshooter away any evidence that runs counter to this fallacious claim of WoF being somehow better than everything else in the game.
There's a little saying we have around these parts that goes a little something like this: Everything is OP on Mercury.
-
24 minutes ago, MuscleBeach said:
They are reducing the Range because they don't like auto clearing missions by just parkouring through the level and having 3 teammates do nothing. I'm aware that this is mostly lvl 50 and below missions. This is something they don't want to happen, just like they don't want Chroma 1 shotting Teralysts.. Tell me, how do you solve this? Because the only two options I can think of are:
- Reduce the range so that not everything is in range to auto die.
- Remove the damage so that things can't die.
Please tell me any other way you can think of the correct this issue because as far as I can tell, people in this thread don't care about what the devs are trying to fix.
If you listen to the dev stream, you would have heard them say how WoF not being useful at high levels is a separate issue that needs to be fixed and is unrelated to what these changes are addressing. I don't think they said this about WoF specifically but my point is you're arguing for the wrong things. There's an ability that they (and a lot of the community) feel is unfun and they're doing something about it. Not killing things at high level? Not being able to get in close? Those are balancing issues, not mechanical ones like the change they are making. Though, they're trying to address balance issues as well.
So yes, you have a point, taking issue with the range is fine. But what are you proposing instead? They remove the easy clearing issue? They're fixing this issue whether you like it or not. So start proposing solutions that fix the issue AND make you happy as an Ember player.
If I listen to the Devstream I hear pandering to endlessly whining children who pick ill-begotten fault with something for which they don't have an accurate view.
The range is neither relevant nor outstanding already. At the enemy levels in question, an Ignis with Sinister Reach and Firetorm slotted can do everything Ember can with no Warframe input. Add on self-buffs and we're going beyond the point of permanent World On Fire instantly killing, for just as cheap energy investments and just as full consistency.
World on Fire is less effective at similar ranges when compared to any number of AOE damage abilities. The difference of it being a channeled ability is immaterial; these 'arguments' being raised are in conflict with the behaviour already displayed in previous balance changes.
Did Simulor Mirage press one button and parkour though the level? No, those degenerates clicked mindlessly as they went and recast their 1 occasionally. Did that necessity to press the button more than once make it any less problematic of gameplay? No.
Ergo, the channeled consistency of WoF does not matter. Easy clearing is achievable with other frames just as well, but the unwashed masses, in their subjective and narrow view of the world, parasitically attached themselves to one inconsequential difference to target their ire until DE finally caved in.
Ember didn't need a nerf. World on Fire didn't need a nerf. But a rebalance would be fine if they actually balanced the books on the changes instead of leaving us with 12.5% of the effective volume with no compensation.
-
Just now, DatDarkOne said:
Which is a major thing that most miss in almost every Ember complaint topic to date.
You haven't gotten the full Ember experience until you've been in certain Corpus tiles and had your ULTIMATE BURN THE WORLD ability fizzle uselessly on three invulnerable turrets while the enemies happily shoot you in the face.
Besides, I don't think people realise that you can pump out about 50m range with an Ignis. Maybe my builds aren't the most precisely honed in the universe, but unless the enemies are literal paper, half of them get taken down by the flamethrower before WoF even gets a look in.
-
1 hour ago, MuscleBeach said:
So far this is the only complaint I've seen in this thread that matters. The skill is changing due to unfun reasons, not balance; Because of this, I doubt they're going to change their minds on reducing the range. So instead of complaining about it and saying it sucks, offer a solution that coincides with their decision:
Actually, taking issue with the shortsighted range reductions is the proper approach.
Because it isn't a wide-ranged ability. No matter how much people want to cry about it hitting things out of sight. Its range is average at best, currently, and range doesn't actually help the ability as much as it does almost every other Warframe because of the hard contiguous target limit - a function which, I might add, is matched by no other AOE. Even Bastille's target-limit isn't hard-set, since it scales with strength and can be subverted with the augment.
Halving the radius is not linear, not even area, but a cubic reduction of the spherical volume. So unless you're suggesting that we get 16x damage scaled World On Fire (2^3 = 8x for the range, and a further 2x on top for the added energy costs) then... how do you propose compensating 1600% reduced functionality?
-
Just now, Zahnny said:
Gotta be honest, this sounds like less of an argument and trying to explain something we already knew in more depth to try and make the argument sound better. It really doesn't work and instead shows that you can only rely on one argument so you gotta make it better.
It explains that 50% reduction in the number we see is actually an 87.5% reduction in the functional application.
Just because you can make that logical leap doesn't mean everyone can, so the distinctly greater magnitude of that particular aspect could be missed.
Ivara's Prowl has been disassembled and no longer has any perks that make it worth the many drawbacks.
in Warframes
Posted · Edited by EDYinnit
And an additional 0.5 energy per second while you're moving.
And an additional 0.64 energy per melee strike.
And an additional 3.2 energy per tick of damage taken.
(Those are all respective to your build by the way. Base values are all higher: the listed 1/s while stationary +2/s while moving, 2 per melee strike and 10 per damage tick)
Gotta love those unlisted extra burdens!