Mayhem-Ivory

Kind of yes, but not quite, no. What was said in the DevShort was that it is the highest range damage dealing ability. Given that the two attributes used to describe it were highest range and damage dealing, people have come to the conclusion that one of these two attributes needs to be removed. Where I believe some people are making a mistake is by differentiating within the effects of the ability itself. They treat the base damage and the status detonation damage as two seperate effects, of which only the former leads to a high range damage dealing ability while the latter leads to a high range status detonating ability. Purely linguistically their argument is correct, however, I don't think that DE cares much if the damage is base damage or status detonation damage because the resulting effect is the same.

It is. "Thats just ass-backwards idiotic, I'm sorry" Not only was that the only line where I was "being rude", talking about your argumentation and not you as a person; I also apologised for it. Correct. This is something you have stated originally and I have agreed with. In theory they can be used in conjunction. In practise, Tragedy cannot be spammed, wherefor Thermal Sunder defaults back to the previous point: "spamming thermal sunder on a max range [build] in steel path isn't strong. Conclusion: since it isn't usable, it cannot be "incredibly effective". Incorrect. Again, your reasoning is backwards, and therefor nonsense. If the combination of Tragedy and Thermal Sunder (using Helminth) is problematic and the combination of Dark Verse and Tragedy (a frame's base kit) is not problematic, then the issue is not the part that is of the base kit. The ability that needs LoS in this case is Thermal Sunder. The same holds true for all frames and all Helminth abilities. All frames need to be considered as a closed system first, and adjustements need to be constrained to the system that is causing the issues: Helminth. We even have precedent for abilities being altered exclusively for Helminth. Thermal Sunder could have LoS only when subsumed, for instance. It could even be incompatible with Dante. Either way, the solution must be within the Helminth system and not within Dante.

That is complete nonsense. Not only are you arguing to reduce the usability (not related to power) of a frames base kit based on a single helminth ability (which is ridiculous), that combination wouldnt even be usable. You are suggesting to forgo Noctua, cast Dark Verse into thin air twice, and then spam Thermal Sunder (which as you said isnt even steel path viable) to get even a single room cleared. Tragedy does not need LoS; and especially not because of Thermal Sunder. Thats just ass-backwards idiotic, I'm sorry, but no. "Allies might feel like they're getting griefed" is a better argument than that.

Why did they even pick 1 billion? The issue is lag caused by integer overflow, which happens beyond 2,147,483,647 points of damage. What kind of moron doesn't start their game by - just in case - adding a universal 2,1 billion damage cap? Why is there only one ability that has a damage cap? Why is the damage cap half of what it could be? Why does this game not have any failsaves; must the same issue really creep up again in future updates? And most importantly: Why do they keep trying to gaslight the community instead of communicating with it?

Out of curiosity from a guy who tries to solo-make his own stuff; what's it called, where can I check it out? While I understand some people's rebuttal that that is all just sentiments and not constructive criticism: "It feels bad" is still a very valuable sentiment. I saw a S#&$show go down recently in the DnD5e/OneDnD community where lots of people were quick to yap "constumers are good at finding the problem, but bad at finding a solution" - but now right here people are being dismissed for pointing out the issue without offering a solution. You could probably make a list just as large with people giving good reasoning for why LoS is bad for Tragedy and offering a number of solutions. The only reason those posts didn't get hundreds of likes is because they take longer to write and thus are posted later and seen by less people. So yea, while DE is admittedly good at noticing outrage (how could they miss it), they should put in more effort to properly parse the different feedback channels. From what I can tell, the forum, reddit and youtube are all still buzzing with complaints, even if it has gotten a lot less.

Eclipse was stated to be set at 30% to be consistent with Roar. Parity was the intention, even if it failed. Eclipse was stated to be set at 90% to be consistent with other forms of DR. Parity was the intention, even if it was limited to Mirage. All abilities that provide damage or DR have some additional effect. In the case of Eclipse, the additional effect is being able to switch between damage and DR. There is no further additional benefit to either effect individually. Whether you consider that to be a strong or weak additional effect can be up for debate, but Eclipse does as much "one thing" as all the other abilities with similar effect; you do not gain both effects simultaneously. The stats required for builds is largely irrelevant for consistency; they are still consistently placed at the same grade of effectiveness across most frames. The only real exception remaining right now is Trinity's Blessing; there's also Baruuk, but he is a complicated situation with three different DR sources, one of which is consistent with others at 90%. Of course nothing exists in a vaccum. That is why I compared Eclipse with abilities that are part of the Helminth system - to showcase it was no longer an appealing option. It has failed to become the meaningful alternative that it should have been.

Of course fairness isn't typically used to describe the comparison between two game features, it is a word focused around people. "Create parity and provide a balanced set of options within the subsystem of gameplay that is helmith infusions" just doesn't have the same ring to it. I think my appreviating that to "fair" is personally reasonable for the discussion at hand.

The community should understand at this point that clearly DE Momaw responds to things that can be addressed immediately. Things like "what exactly is the issue", "we have that on our list" or "I just checked and cant replicate it". Topics that concern the general direction of the game and require a lot of internal consideration can obviously not be responded to by the person who's job is managing the forum. Case in point: they addressed the Arcan Titron and Nezha Augment without ever responding to any comments regarding them. The DE design team and DE Momaw are (surprise) different people.

Even if you magically make LoS work perfectly all the time with no cost to performance, it has no place on Dante's Tragedy. It makes his playstyle inflexible and unfun. Dark Verse is an enabler, Tragedy is a detonator - being unable to detonate the procs you've spread feels awful. Procs spread by Dark Verse need to always be detonated by Tragedy, there cannot be a line of sight check! Frankly, thats bad design. Reduce the range if you have to, or have Dark Verse apply a mark that makes enemies possible to target through walls with Tragedy.

Okay so, two points: The concerns that people had when Dante first came out were, as far as I could tell, always about the Overguard and not the damage, much less the LoS. If people are worried about "kill-stealing" or Dante "nuking the map" before they can do anything themselves, that is indeed only the damage of Tragedy. That is because the status detonation is reliant mostly on Dark Verse, which has less range and uses LoS. Concerning why people are now asking specifically for the removal of either the damage or reduction of the range: DE Steve & Rebecca said on DevShort 11 that a damage ability with such range is unprecedented, and that that is why they added LoS. They compared Tragedy to Xaku's The Vast Untime which has a range of 25m instead of Dante's 30m. Personally I'm pretty sure they were talking about the range, regardless of if the damage comes from the ability itself or the status detonation; but a lot of folks seem to have interpreted that as "as long as either damage or range are gone, it is no longer a high-range damage ability". The part about "low-level nuking" is conjecture by the community, based on the statements about long-range damage abilities and the limitations on the status detonation due to Dark Verse.

Remove LoS -> Reduce Range/base damage Copying/rewording this from my forum post. DE, my guys, if the range-damage was the issue, why didn't you just say so? Simply "we feel as a damage ability without LoS, the range of Tragedy is too big. we are considering reducing the range or adding LoS." The community would love to work with you on fixing issues. If Xaku's The Vast Untime is fine at 25m without LoS, and Dante's Tragedy is too much with 30m, then just reduce it to 25m! This entire drama could have been avoided; and in fact, you can quite easily make it up to the community! Dante's playstyle has an enabler and a detonator; and the detonator not reaching enemies puts a severe dampener on Dante's playability. If reducing the range of Tragedy down to The Vast Untime's 25m or even down to Dark Verse's 20m removes the need for a LoS check, then that is simply the correct action to take! Better yet if you could simply remove the 6,500 base damage and make it purely a detonator. So please do that. Thank you guys; lot's of love~

I have more thoughts on this topic, and I plan to respond to your OP if I find the time, but I wanted to jump in here real quick. There is many different way to handle it precisely, but I think the order of operation is more important: (immunity erosion) If Overguard enemis were immune to CC for even just 5-10 seconds, I'm not sure it would exactly fix the problem. (immunity adaptation) If inversely Overguard enemies only became immune to CC after 5-10 seconds of being affected by it, that would mean that CC gives you a small time window in which you have to deal with them - or face the consequences of failing to do so. I think the latter would be more in the spirit of what DE wants them to be; but I do worry that doing it that way would be enough to trivialize the Eximus again.

This is a completely different situation I believe. The overguard wasn't much of a nerf really, since the cap remained the same. Meanwhile giving Tragedy less range than Dark Verse wouldn't even make sense. You wouldn't be able to "benefit from tragedy" regardless of range mods if they did that. They'd make both Dark Verse and Tragedy 15m long before putting Tragedy at 10m.

I don't like it either, I'd much rather they reduce or even remove the base damage and make it purely a status detonator. But if it means I can get rid of LoS, I'd be willing to pay that price.

I just watched the DevShort 11, and ... DE, my guys, if the range was the issue, why didn't you just say so? Simply "we feel as a damage ability without LoS, the range of Tragedy is too big. we are considering reducing the range or adding LoS." The community would love to work with you on fixing issues. If Xaku's The Vast Untime is fine at 25m without LoS, and Dante's Tragedy is too much with 30m, then just reduce it to 25m! This entire drama could have been avoided; and in fact, you can quite easily make it up to the community! Dante's playstyle has an enabler and a detonator; and the detonator not reaching enemies puts a severe dampener on Dante's playability. If reducing the range of Tragedy down to The Vast Untime's 25m or even down to Dark Verse's 20m removes the need for a LoS check, then that is simply the correct action to take! So please do that. Thank you guys; lot's of love~ 😘