Armadillidium_vulgare

Thanks for the response! It's a little difficult to follow with the block formatting, so I'm going to cut it up a little for legibility. Don't worry about being rude; you're not. The question of Dante's play style is a reasonable one, imo, and part of why it was such of screwup on DE's part releasing him as he was. It's very clear that 334 and how it synergizes feels like it's intended and integrated. It was strong and felt pretty good to use even with the LOS limitations of Dark Verse which had some issues even at launch (though I understand those have been fixed or are otherwise getting looked at). However, you're correct in identifying that a critical component to his Tragedy is status output from Dante and other players. And that's also precisely why it was far, far too powerful in its original implementation, combined with its other strengths. Yeah, the native slash damage from 334 did fall off eventually as health pools went up and using his 3 for slash priming on his 4 did mean you were limited to LOS already. But that doesn't address that his Tragedy also detonated every other player's procs in a 70 meter radius AOE with one of the more common builds. The slash damage on his 334, while powerful and multiplied, wasn't sufficient on its own, at least not at higher levels. If he only detonated his own damage, I don't think that he would have been given the additional LOS limitation on his 4. The problem was that he could detonate his own procs, and everyone else's. So while it's absolutely the case that if you were only using his 3 to prime while playing solo, you were already stuck dealing with LOS applications, any time that there were other players dealing status and damage in a 70 meter AOE his capabilities skyrocketed, to say nothing of the procs coming from your own weapons. It was this, in combination with the huge AOE, that let Dante top Saryn and Octavia as the premier "nukes" for about a week or so. And level design being a balance factor is a good point, but we already have that in everyday. Why do we prefer some tiles more than others? Why are some tilesets terrible for survival while others are not? The tilesets affect enemy flow to the meatgrinder that is the player, and it's by paying attention and playing around tile limitations that we can optimize further. The flipside of tiles being a balancing factor for LOS is that without LOS abilities become incredibly, incredibly powerful. If Saryn's Miasma could hit 70 meters and deal as much damage as Dante's 4, surely that would be understood to be an issue? As it stands, Saryn's 4 falls off and is somewhat limited by her Spores, which already feature some limiting factors (for all that that counts for). Dante not having a LOS check on his Tragedy and thus bypassing all of the tile clutter and hallways was a significant factor behind his being OP. He didn't have to be in the same room to detonate your procs, but could be halfway across the map and through a wall and still kill everything you'd touched. What might have been balanced for the massive Laboratory tilesets clearly was too far for older, more restricted ones, and part of me suspects this may have been what slipped by them. If they were playtesting him mostly on a massive tileset like the Labs, that 70 meter AOE is suddenly a lot less impressive. So, to sum up, we have these components: 1 - status multiplier 2 - base slash damage 3 - massive range with no LOS check 4 - detonating all procs, regardless of source I believe that it's a combination of 1, 3, and 4 that are the main culprits towards his 4 being brokenly strong, and I think most of your solutions are pretty reasonable. 1 - Removing the status multiplier entirely kills the purpose behind Tragedy. That's it's big draw, and what they advertised the ability as doing. So I don't think they could get away with that. Reducing it still retains the fact that it's an additional multiplier to a damage calculation featuring player damage as an input. We can already hit hundreds of millions of damage with things like Heat Inherit, so while I think this is reasonable it still remains very strong if reduced while still being able to detonate other procs through walls. 2 - The base slash damage is also very strong, and multiplied can hit enemies very hard. However, you're right that it's mostly a star chart nuke and makes playing with a Dante at low levels for newer players miserable, similar to the old AOE spam and Thermal Sunder Exterminate Titania problems of today. It being removed probably wouldn't be a huge deal, but it would still be a nerf, and players hate nerfs. 3 - The range is a thorny issue, because if his AOE remains as non-LOS, a reduction of a few meters can be compensated for by our builds. As it is, Dante with a base range of 25 meters would have an AOE with a 60 meter radius at 235% range; that's still massive. With a range maximized build, he could go back to having a 70 meter radius, even! While that might lead to a reduction in ability strength investment to reduce his status multiplier, that doesn't resolve the fact that it's a massive AOE with no LOS checks working on all procs that's an additional multiplier on top of player generated damage procs. Hence my concern that if they allowed his Tragedy to retain the lack of LOS restrictions, they'd have to severely limit his range to prevent him from continuing to wallhack and detonate other player's procs. A nerf of 5 meters would be insufficient to address the issues DE noticed, is my worry. So we could possibly end up in a scenario like with Nezha's augment, where it maxes out at around 25 meters, rather than starting there. 4 - Limiting his proc detonation to only his procs would probably have resolved it as well; with Dark Verse there's a time limit of 6 seconds to detonate the slash procs, with diminishing returns the longer a player waits to finish off the 334 combo. If Dante was priming with weapons, this would be less of an issue due to how Status Duration mods interact with detonation abilities. There's a reason Citrine is a Dante's best friend! Honestly, that change might have been the best one, and it wasn't one I'd really considered given how hard a nerf it would be to his capabilities. Hats off to you! Unfortunately, or fortunately, DE listed range or LOS as the two options that they were considering, and went with LOS. I don't expect them to revert the changes, but swapping back to non-LOS at a cost of only being able to detonate his own procs would be a reasonable tradeoff. Most players seem to be complaining about detonating their own procs, and may not have even realized that his broken OP-ness came from detonating everyone's procs. Though, that would return us to the issue of low level mass nuking, so that might require adjustment as well. Either way, what's done is done, but you've given me some things to consider. Thank you, now I'm going to get an ego. Thank you, too, now I'm going to get an even bigger ego! That's interesting; I guess it's a forced toxin proc that ignores modded elementals. Shame about the armor strip plan not working, though.

So you were aware of the issues, but somehow missed all of the people complaining about those issues for months/years now? Or you were aware that there were issues and just didn't think anyone would be complaining about them? I'm not sure which is worse. Attributing intent is exactly what you did. You said it was a planted problem. That is, it is a problem that DE planted. Planted, in English, has several meanings, but the obvious one in use here is "to put something or someone in a position secretly, especially in order to deceive someone." To call Dante's range a planted problem is to claim that DE knew it was an issue but went forward with it anyway in order to intentionally deceive players or give them an excuse to implement nerfs and changes later. That is attributing intent to Dante's huge range, not in regard to the LOS implementations. I'm going to have to ask you to put that goalpost back where you found it. Oh, I entirely agree that the LOS changes are great. That Dante is no longer outperforming Saryns and Octavias is nice as well, given he's already a top-tier support frame on top of having a strong nuke. Not being able to spam 334 and detonate everything in a 70 meters radius is a reasonable tradeoff given how exceptional he is, all things considered. The easy thing would have been to revert the changes or not nerf him at all. It would quiet the screeching at the cost of their vision and game balance. Instead they went with a nerf that doesn't require heavy investment in range to compensate for or render his range useless without it, and frees up mod space in more restricted tiles. Even if they went with nerfing his range, I have no doubt the outcry would have been similar. Nerfing his damage wouldn't have solved the issue with his being able to detonate all procs in a massive AOE, and nerfing the multiplier would have caused just as much uproar. Fundamentally changing how his abilities function and their features is a greater rugpull than adjusting them to work as LOS. I'm not saying that DE is Jackson Pollock, but they certainly spilled the paint on this one rather than using a brush. Your idea of common sense can be pretty much translated to "DE should do what I want." C'est la vie. Que sera sera. So on. LOS works on other abilities, and where it's clunky they're making improvements. Keep better track of your sightlines, and you'll be back to winning with one button in no time! So are they incompetent and missed a glaring balance issue, or are they devilishly scheming to nerf Dante from the start and swindle people to pay for Tennocon? Which is it? Fine then. DE are simply insane; it's not that some quality control process failed, or there was an oversight of some kind, as has been the case with prior incidents were something is released in an incredibly OP state. No. They are simply insane! People outside of a problem's context can often identify issues that those within the bubble might be overlooking. It's how sometimes a child might point out a simple solution to a problem that is driving the adults in the room bonkers. A fresh perspective can often miss what those mired in trying to solve a problem overlook. Props to your sister, though, it sounds like you've got smart relatives at least. Warframe is a difficult and complicated game that even players with thousands of hours can struggle to fully understand. The fact that after a mere 4 hours she's got a firm grasp on how Warframe works is pretty impressive! It can't have just been a screwup though, despite all indicators pointing in that direction. No! According to you, DE has to be insane! It can't be that they managed to miss something obvious and broken, like what happened with Styanax. No, no, not even precedent can explain this. They must be locked up in an asylum! Send in the psychiatrists! Someone needs to call Sigmund Freud, ASAP! But of course, they aren't merely insane, they're EVIL money-grubbers too, since you can't seem to decide on one or the other! In any case, I said it makes no sense, because it makes no sense. DE are obviously aware of the type of bad PR and uproar nerfs to strong frames and weapons can cause, especially shortly after a release. The idea that they would intentionally make Dante overpowered in order to take advantage of short-term profit gains only to nerf him is absurd. Why not simply release Dante with a reduced range and skip out on all of the outcry, or with LOS restrictions? Sure, content creators wouldn't be able to make clickbait about his nuke, but the rest of his support and offensive kit is still very, very strong. If he'd been released with those nerfs already implemented, they wouldn't be dealing with the mess that they are right now. Put simply: Why would they intentionally place themselves in a lose-lose position that leads to a loss of goodwill and (later) prompts them to rework LOS, as well as explicitly apologize for the screwup? The idea that releasing Dante in his broken OP state made them more money than the loss of faith and goodwill will cost them in future sales is nuts. Why would they do that instead of merely announcing that they'll be reworking LOS, and releasing Dante in a nerfed state we'd have never known was nerfed? Screwups happen. Not everyone is out to get you. People are just wrong sometimes, or miss things. How many other abilities and weapons check for LOS in some way, shape, or form? In the case of guns, EVERY SINGLE ONE. LOS is a common check in this game, though sometimes they have funny ways of doing it. They could very well have copy/pasted from some other LOS check and the implementation was sufficiently scuffed that it was part of why the whole system is currently under review across multiple abilities. Again, fundamentally changing what Dante's abilities do clearly was not on the table in terms of what DE was looking for. They specified LOS restrictions and Range nerf as the two options explicitly, and they decided to go with LOS restrictions. You may have your impression of the merits to the various other changes that DE could have made, but at the end of the day, none of those were on the list of options they said they were considering, and none of them were the ones that DE went with. Given you think Protea of all frames has damage falloff, I'm seriously starting to doubt your expertise. I'm getting a sense of deja vu. "Remove damage" wasn't on the list of options they were considering as a balancing measure, and we heard that straight from the horse's mouth. Even if it was on the table, it wouldn't resolve the issues Tragedy otherwise had. And none of this addresses the potential underlying reasons behind their choosing between those two options, rather than coming to you and begging for suggestions. Seriously, it's like they're selling vanilla ice cream, or chocolate, and you are demanding that they sell you strawberry instead. I'm going to need you to read this a few more times and think it over again. If you removed the damage from Saryn's spores, would that not change the functionality? They can just spread corrosive procs and strip armor, after all! What about Citrine's 3? It's not like the gem needs damage, it can just be a status spreading tool! Removing the damage doesn't change the functionality! Please. Changing what the ability does obviously entails a change in its functionality. Yes, they did. I think you are misunderstanding what I meant. It wasn't a compromise explicitly between what DE wants and the demands of certain players that the nerf be reverted or rendered non-LOS at a range cut. It was a compromise between nerfing his range and nerfing his damage on DE's part, as I explained. He keeps the range, he keeps the damage, but now it's no longer causing issues three and a half rooms away. Functionally, it's a range nerf to Tragedy, but doesn't require players to mod for more range to compensate and doesn't require DE to nerf his range into the ground in anticipation of players compensating. Damage nerfs, either to the multiplier or the base damage are generally the most sensitive issues, and even then it wouldn't have addressed the massive AOE or the fact that a critical input to the damage calculation is PLAYER DAMAGE. We have weapons that can easily hit millions upon millions of damage, especially when taking into account status DoTs like slash and toxin, or Heat Inherit. Even if his multiplier was capped at something like 2x damage, that's still a unique additional multiplier on procs that already can deal with Steel Path level enemies, scaling all the way up to 10k on a frame whose base kit is already levelcap viable. It was a combination of the following factors: 1 - massive range 2 - non-LOS 3 - slash damage 4 - detonates all DoTs regardless of source Saryn's spores are considered to be one of the most OP abilities in the game. Well, for Dante other players were his spores: They spread status and damage that he could detonate in a massive area with a strong multiplier, all at once, instantly. "I'm not attributing intent!" you say, as you continue to repeatedly attribute intent. DE are somehow evil scammers for nerfing Dante, rather than having committed a monumental screwup. Or maybe they're insane. It'd be really nice if you could just pick one and stick with it, rather than constantly jumping from position to position as convenient. Not sure what you mean by the corpo marketing slop. They were pretty upfront that Dante's crummy LOS implementation prompted a review, and that review identified LOS issues with other frames that they're working to fix. To my knowledge, they haven't been advertising this. You might want to drink less negative KoolAid if its making you sick. You said they should implement a LOS grace period, as though that's not already a thing. You're very clearly implying that they do not work in the same manner as before, despite not having tested it and framing it as something in need of fixing with a feature they're already using. Much as you keep doing with attributing intent, stop trying to move the goalposts. It's alright! You messed up and didn't know something about an extremely complicated game's systems! It's not the end of the world to be wrong, you know. I hate Pillage, personally. It feels awkward to use for me, and is against my personal preference as a helminth ability since it demands so much strength investment. But that's beside the point. With the above said: This entire discussion would be going a lot smoother if you'd pay attention to what they're doing and test things sufficiently yourself if you don't believe what they say, given that they're already doing this across multiple abilities. It's like someone uneducated complaining that they are uneducated, despite the book of knowledge being sat on the table in front of them. All you have to do is open the book and start reading. Good! We found something we can agree on. ...Except they haven't been using the LOS changes in marketing, unless they've rushed out a new set of ads I'm unaware of. I'm not certain we can call it damage control, either, now that I think more about it; it's clear that they identified issues with Dante's LOS implementation and are extending those fixes to other abilities. Now, is that because they're playing damage control, or because the current flawed implementation isn't what they want for the game and they'd be working on it regardless of how Dante's release went if it was sufficiently brought to their attention? Worth considering. Either way, they're introducing positive changes regardless of the reasons behind them. If they're trying to make up for a botched release as an apology, that's fine with me. The game is improving. Citing how some abilities used to work like that as though they don't work like that now and have been improved to work like that even more leniently, is either ignorant or disingenuous. I'm leaning towards the latter given how much you move the goalposts, but whatever. I mean, saying Protea has damage falloff seems like a prime example of something you got wrong at bare minimum, and confidently claiming they're insane, or evil, or swindlers, or so on, so forth when the clear and obvious answer is that they screwed up probably counts in some form as well. Still, I appreciate the forward-thinking, no regrets attitude. YOLO, after all. It's more like they're performing a recall after they realized their toys contain lead paint. You might be happy with the toy, but it's not something they want out in the public. You clearly understand that at bare minimum Dante's range (in combination with how his nuke works) was unhealthy for the game. Given this, you can understand why they would nerf it, even if you disagree with the method?

They clearly addressed feedback and have addressed more since. There's probably going to be even more discussion on Friday's devstream, but none of it counts because they didn't address it following the specific form and manner that you demand. As ever, "DE isn't listening because they're not doing what I want!" holds true. There's been plenty of other people who are happy with Dante as he is now, myself being one of them. But because I don't agree with you, clearly I'm a troll and I don't count as a player. This sort of thing is probably why DE doesn't listen to your demands feedback. No, the problem is that their response to feedback isn't satisfactory to you. You'll only count it as a response to feedback if they do a full rollback and reversion to non-LOS AOE broken OP Dante. Because "DE isn't listening!" It's obviously relevant, because that's precisely what DE targeted in nerfing him the way that they did. Your "QOL" is understood by everyone else, including DE, to be "performance." Dante was able to outperform Saryns and Octavias, handily, and do so all the way up to levelcap. His ability damage has superior scaling given that weapon damage from our arsenal is a component to its damage formula, including that of your teammates. His damage and KPM are at a much more acceptable state now than at launch. He can still perform very well, he just requires rubbing two braincells together long enough to make a fire. Good thing game development isn't a democracy, otherwise we'd still be trapped in the Spin-2-Win or Monkey Man AOE metas that everyone despised for so long. In any case, the LOS changes post fixes are fine, there's still some issues but it's clear they're working on them. LOS is obviously measurable, and a range nerf would have entailed much harsher range reductions since the issue was him hitting enemies through walls. If the problem is the wallhacks, and their solution was LOS, just how much do you think they'd gut his range in order to prevent the wallhacks from remaining a significant issue? Dante's damage is INSANE. They had to implement a 1 billion damage CAP, for crying out loud. How is that "not good"? Do you understand how his damage is calculated? Why it's understood that he has/had one of the strongest nukes in the game? I mean, the answer there is obviously no, but surely the fact that the cap is so high should tell you something about it? Right? Right? 4 is wildly optimistic. It's more likely they'd fall into the pitfalls I mentioned, or he ended up with a trashed range like Nezha's augment but without any hope of being buffed because DE understands just how brokenly OP his nuke can be, even if you don't. 5 is laughable. DE clearly wasn't willing to leave his nuke in the brokenly OP state that it was, and that's what precipitated this entire ensuing mess. He was OP, he is OP, and that you don't seem to recognize that is a skill issue. 6 is just a restatement of prior points and doesn't resolve the fact that the community hates nothing more than repeated nerfs. What would you say is a valid reason? Because that sounds like a whole list of reasons that strike me as fine, but which you immediately dismiss as BS or unacceptable. "DE isn't listening!" means "DE isn't doing what I want!"

There's no such thing as -accuracy on rivens.

LOS on Tragedy is good, actually. He has other abilities, people.

Then why not just say, "Yes, I also think the Sobek could use a buff, because it only has niche and limited use otherwise!" That Sobek is only really useful at low levels or in Saryn's hands is common knowledge among Sobek enjoyers. Your comment detracts from the point being made that it IS a weak weapon. If someone is indicating a weak or underpowered weapon and asking for modernization or buffs, and you point out the one limited use-case in which it isn't weak... What else are we supposed to take from that? You are explicitly countering the point that it is weak by bringing up that it has a one-frame synergy with Saryn.

Be that as it may, there are people who enjoy the Sobek who also like to play frames other than Saryn. A Kuva, Wraith, or Prisma Sobek would be a nice addition to our arsenal. That there are plenty of weapons that need looking at is not at issue, since the Sobek is one of those weapons. Further, if a weapon is only overpowered in a niche where pretty much any weapon would be overpowered - that is, wielded by a weapons platform Saryn or Saryn in general - is it really OP on its own? "Please don't buff this weak weapon or introduce additional variants because there are other weak weapons and this one has a niche, one-frame synergy!" strikes me as rather self-defeating if the goal is for DE to buff weak weapons.

If it's only OP in the hands of 1 frame out of 50-odd frames due to a specific interaction with how her Toxic Lash works... and outside of those specific conditions it does not perform nearly as well... Perhaps it could use an update? Seriously, Saryn can make just about any weapon perform effectively, with some exceptions. It's an Impact-weighted status shotgun with poor crit stats and a low base pellet count. It needs the help, even if an updated Kuva version isn't able to use Acid Shells.

You... did you seriously stop watching a couple of minutes in? Steve explicitly reads the chat and mentions what people are saying and discusses feedback they've received, and they talk about how it was a question of range vs LOS for the nerf. How on earth did you miss that? Yeah, you clearly stopped watching halfway through. His performance in terms of what? In terms of KPM and functional range, his performance has been greatly reduced when not played optimally, as well it should. A 70m non-LOS AOE was insane. His damage remains the same, but the LOS changes meant he's not capable of hitting things through walls anymore from 70+ meters away. The fact of the matter is that this isn't a matter of QOL, it's a matter of performance, no matter how much you try to claim otherwise. After all, if his performance is still more or less the same why do you have an issue with it? Slapping LOS on it was a reasonable balancing measure, and much less drastic a change than gutting his range stats or changing how his abilities worked entirely. If they reduced his range too little, players could simply compensate with more range mods and the problem would remain unresolved. If they reduced it too much to prevent the previous scenario, his 4 would have been rendered impotent entirely without range maximization, thus heavily restricting his build variety. LOS means you don't have to invest as much into range, while still keeping his massive damage. LOS restriction means that they didn't have to fumble through finding the ideal balance point with his ability range, and removed the potential uproar from them nerfing his range into the dirt, or having to nerf his range repeatedly if they were too light-handed the first go around. Easiest and from their perspective the best solution of the available options, which is why they went with it. Put plainly: Options for Nerfing Dante's Range: 1- Nerf it too little, have to nerf it harder, prompting even more of a S#&$storm. 2- Nerf it too much, rendering it into a short-ranged nuke outside of maxed range builds, and genuinely making his nuke useless without range investment. 3- Add LOS restrictions, keeping the damage and the range, but resolving the OP nature of being able to hit through walls in a massive AOE. But, here's a question. If they took the time to explain the process behind going with LOS in excruciating detail and why they wouldn't be doing a revert to the prior version, and explain that it was the best way as determined by their balancing department or whatever, would you accept the LOS changes then?

Ohhhh, I see, unless they use these exact words and address the issue in this specific way as laid out by you, it's all unacceptable. Nah, he got you to be a lot more explicit about it, hence the shoutout to him. And as I recall, you started out by trying to claim this was all about the Quality of Life, and how you don't care about the performance, just the QOL. Ah, and I suppose that you're the one who knows how that should be done, and they should just listen to you? "DE isn't listening!" at its finest.

Do you mean it should have corrosive on the AOE? Is it not corrosive and is still toxin despite the shards?

I mean, you could just listen to what they had to say about it, rather than insisting they're not listening to feedback and accusing everyone who doesn't agree with your feelings of being a troll: SneakyErvin is a lot less snarky than I am, but he's absolutely got the right of it and gotten you to admit why you stand where you do. So props to him. That just means that the feedback you're giving is insufficiently compelling, or they simply don't want to do what you want them to do. As has been said, "I feel sad/bad/mad, so do what I want!" isn't a good argument. If the only acceptable action is for them to revert the Dante changes according to you, how is that any different than what you're accusing them of doing? It doesn't matter to you what they say or do or even if they're listening at all, as long as they aren't doing what you want. Like I said: "They aren't listening!" and "They aren't doing what I want!" are often interchangeable when Warframe players are complaining giving feedback.

Important reminder: When people say "DE isn't listening!" what they typically mean is "DE isn't doing what I want!"

Did you seriously never notice the LOS issues with Ember? She's notorious for her prior LOS issues. Baruuk's Lull? Mirage and her Prism? Hell, Mesa, even, since she only shoots at center mass? Just because you weren't paying attention or affected by the issues doesn't mean they didn't exist. People complained, you just never noticed. For example: Ah yes, LOS! (Link: https://imgur.com/a/BRrznCl) I clearly can't see that Exo Gokstad Officer at all! Srsly though, I don't want her to be able to headshot, I just want her able to hit things that she can see. hopefully she's on the LOS update list. You're attributing intent where there was none. They didn't make Dante's LOS bad intentionally, and that much is obvious. Pablo even came out and apologized for it, as did Steve and Reb. The root problem was that Dante's nuke being non-LOS and with a massive AOE that detonates and multiplies all heat/slash/toxin procs (not just his own). He was demonstrably able to outdamage and outkill Saryns and Octavias. They had to cap his damage at 1 billion because it was causing issues, for crying out loud. It sucked, but DE had a couple of options to balance him without touching his strength/how his abilities functioned: they could nerf the range (outcry), nerf the strength (more outcry), or nerf it using some other factor (let's be honest, there was always gonna be outcry). After the nerf, they recognized that in its current state the LOS system was insufficient; they heard us complaining, and rather than say, "Tough luck, you can solve Brozime's Notorious Issue by jumping," they've knuckled down and started rolling out LOS improvements to Dante and other frames. Hypothetical time! Suppose DE releases a frame that can, with one press of a button, instantly kill every single enemy in a 70 meter radius, regardless of their level. Should DE just live with the broken OP frame, or are they in their rights to change it, regardless of how loudly people complain? Players can ask for DE to leave the frame untouched, but if it's causing issues (which sometimes we as players are not privy to or particularly good at identifying from a development perspective) they are well within their right to change it. People constantly complain about power creep and how new frames and weapons and mods trivialize even the most difficult content, but when DE does the difficult thing and reduces our power fantasy, people complain more. They were in a solidly no-win situation, and I'm glad they did the difficult thing, rather than the easy thing. Bearing all this in mind, I agree. The state of Dante's LOS was terrible, and it's to this which DE is referring when they say they're listening to players. The course of action was already determined because he was going to get a nerf one way or another (LOS or range being the two most likely options), but when players raised the issues encountered with how badly his LOS worked, DE listened and worked to fix it. Further, they're implementing improvements to LOS on other older/clunky/outdated/buggy/inconsistent abilities and frames. But you do highlight an important issue: When people say "DE isn't listening!" what they typically mean is "DE isn't doing what I want!" I completely agree that he was broken OP on release. His range was too high, his overguard generation renders numerous other support frames obsolete, and his damage output was greater than even Saryn (and still can be in ideal setups). That was a colossal screwup on DE's part, I think we can all see that. However, they couldn't just ignore the fact that this new frame was able to outperform Saryn and Octavia, the OP killer queens by whom tier lists are benchmarked. I think it's entirely fair to interrogate why it happened in the first place, but I think we can agree that after his release something needed to be done. So, to borrow from another post I made on the subject: Those were, roughly, DE's options at the time, and I think they went with the best option in how they went about it, but that's just me. Could they have dropped his base range, or nerfed his damage? Sure, but I think either of those two options would have hurt a lot more than what we got, which is improvements to the LOS system across the board in addition to formalizing the status damage on his birds. The LOS restriction functionally reduced his range without requiring us to compensate with more range mods. Annnnd you've lost me. Don't get me wrong: I completely and entirely agree his massive range was an issue, or at least part of the issue. But... it was a "planted problem"? Do you honestly think that DE designed Dante, showed him off, and got us excited to intentionally pull the rug out from under us? For what reason? Laughs? Are they twirling their Movember Mustaches and delighting in our suffering? For goodness's sake, they are people. They came out and apologized for the botched rollouts and explained why. They obviously know what an uproar this is causing, and you're trying to tell me that they... what? Just did it for a lark? Or was it part of some shadowy conspiracy to improve the rest of the LOS system? That doesn't make any sense. If that's the case, why didn't they just come out and say "We're changing all of these LOS abilities to be less bad because we are evil muwhahahaha" and skip the uproar and bad PR? Occam's razor applies: They screwed up. That's it. That's the whole story. They didn't do it to mess with us, they didn't do it because they're evil, they didn't do it because they wanted to trick people out of their money, they didn't do it as some shadowy conspiracy to modernize the entire LOS system; they simply screwed up. I'll be honest, I'm not sure what their testing process is, but I wouldn't be surprised if the issues with Dante weren't made clearer when the additional usage statistics started rolling in. It probably doesn't help that the usual suspects were screaming about how "insanely strong OP level-cap gamer broken nuke new meta frame Dante (not clickbait this time I swear!)" was on release. Screwups happen. It's not the first time something was broken OP on release, or simply flat-out broken, and it won't be the last time, either. That's how things sometimes go with live service titles. Sometimes you get a release like Citrine, where aside from some minor bugs/issues she's well-regarded and in a pretty good place. Other times you get a release like Styanax, where his farm sucks so much they give him out for free, and he's so strong that they have to nerf him. Sometimes you get cool new arcanes that have insane interactions that require nerfs (that is, fixing) like Mirage or Yareli's interactions with Melee Influence. DE did not go into the release of Dante Unbound with the goal of nerfing Dante, and claiming otherwise doesn't make any sense. They got locked into this position by releasing him in an OP state, and regardless of how it got past testing, it did. And here we are. I completely agree that the screwup sucked. In fact, the screwup sucked for everyone involved, not just players, but I understand that sympathy for the devil tends to be poorly received around here. Honestly, if people are so determined to break the game and screw with the way Warframe is intended to work, that's on them. If your machine isn't strong enough to run Warframe and it's causing issues with low framerates that exacerbate otherwise nonissues in the game's systems, that's one thing. I think it should be fixed if possible. However, if people are intentionally reducing their FPS to circumvent and exploit certain mechanics, that's another. Hopefully DE can close those loopholes and that will come as the improved LOS system is refined, but I don't expect that catering to an issue wherein a small minority of people are exploiting how the game works rather than working on larger fixes is a huge priority (or maybe it is? DE has more info than either of us). I guess we'll have to wait and see. Yes, and between the two most likely options (LOS or a range nerf) it's the one that they decided on. Adding a LOS check is pretty basic, and I don't think DE expected it to be as broken on rollout as it was. It's not like LOS checks are all that new, after all. The fact that the LOS was as terrible as it was prompted them to look at other LOS checks, in part due to feedback. I mean, come on. I think that right now it's in a good place, and where it's not in a good place they're continuing to receive feedback and work on fixes. While your suggestions are neat, I expect they'd require more coding time in the case of the damage falloff on a detonator (reduce multiplier by distance? Could be cool). More importantly, I don't think that they'd want to drastically change what his abilities do so soon after release. Restrict what targets his ability affects by way of range or LOS, sure, but there's a far cry between changing the range or LOS checks on an ability and changing what that ability does. DE didn't go into the LOS changes for Dante expecting that they'd need to implement sweeping improvements. It wasn't a decision between reworking the whole of LOS and reducing Dante's range; it was a decision between adding a LOS restriction and reducing Dante's range. Slapping a LOS check on Dante was supposed to be the end of it, not prompt an entire series of LOS improvements and changes. But Dante showed the issues with the LOS system, so now we're all getting the improved versions, which I think is the best outcome. From the horse's mouth: Here's the bottom line: No matter what DE chose to do, they were already in a lose-lose situation because they released him in his OP state. They were going to eat crow no matter what happened. I have no doubt that if they chose to nerf his damage and the multiplier, the same people currently complaining about his LOS restriction would have been screeching that they'd ruined his nuke and that they should have reduced its range instead. If they'd reduced his range, they would have complained that he was now unuseable and that they should have reduced his power slightly. Or introduced LOS restrictions but keep the range, etc. etc. Instead, they compromised. The LOS change functionally reduced his range to the area of a room, barring enemies he can't see; the massive AOE is no longer an issue, since now its restricted to the tile/room you're in, and to enemies you can see. With proper knowledge of positioning and awareness of LOS to enemies, he's still incredibly capable, and able to pump out ridiculous amounts of damage in a massive area. They raised the skill floor, and that's the kind of change I think is good, even if it doesn't cater to the lowest common denominator in the same way as a 70 meter AOE with no need to think about whether or not you can see an enemy. Again, just because you haven't been paying attention to the people raising issues with the old LOS system doesn't mean they didn't exist. People have been asking for LOS improvements across various abilities for years now. Dante's release and subsequent changes highlighted in stark 4k the issues and limitations of LOS as it was, and DE is taking the opportunity to implement improvements and LOS fixes across the board, rather than one slow fix at a time. Does that mean the transition will be perfect? Obviously not, which is why whenever something is found to be broken you'll see people in these threads and others reporting issues and bugs. Does that mean DE isn't taking advantage of the Dante situation to fix these issues and generate some goodwill? Of course not! But just because they're choosing to do this now doesn't mean it's not a good thing that they're doing it. The new LOS system has this. In fact, it's even more generous than the old system, in case you hadn't noticed or never bothered to test anything yourself. As demonstrated here with Pillage, credit to user Arbitrary for this one. Pay close attention to the little armor icon on the right side of the Corrupted Heavy Gunner's health bar and where Arbitrary is standing when it changes. If you're not sure, why are you complaining about it? Are you here to contribute, or just to rage in ignorance because DE isn't doing what you want? Have you seriously not tested any of this for yourself? I don't think the LOS improvements are sleazy. Yes, it sucks that this is what it took for them to realize that LOS wasn't in a great place, but I appreciate that they're working on the flawed system and rather than just applying the fixes to Dante they're providing us with improvements across the board. That Dante was the catalyst doesn't change the fact that when we said the LOS checks on him were extremely flawed, they listened and dedicated themselves to improving him and other frames suffering from LOS issues. Again: When people say "DE isn't listening!" what they typically mean is "DE isn't doing what I want!" No, the REAL sleaziness is with the EDA loadout RNG featuring "You Don't Own This" tags, rather than providing loaner builds or allowing us to have an empty slot in our loadout. That nonsense is downright predatory. You as a player have just finished the story and unlocked Deep Archimedea, and now endgame top tier rewards are dangled above your head... but getting them is contingent on buying/grinding for frames or weapons or weapons slots or forma and catalysts. Definitely the scummiest way to encourage spending I've seen come out of DE in a while. No, no, I agree with you! I think that you're absolutely right, they should reduce his base range, too, and maybe tone down the overguard regeneration as well since it renders DR and armor buffs pointless. But just because you and I think DE didn't go far enough doesn't mean they're going to change things. It's not like it's their game, or anything. To be honest, I don't know if spectres are even capable of being OP since the AI is so bad. Still, I commend the effort in trying to get DE to nerf Dante further. LOS checks + Range reductions would definitely make his nuke more sane, even if the damage didn't change. Maybe this will even get them to have another look at Specter AI! Setting aside my sarcasm, for them it was either LOS or range reductions, and they went with the LOS. Was that the best decision? I think so, you don't, and our opinions don't really matter on this as DE has made their choice.

Here's a more accurate analogy: DE: Oh no! We noticed that this batch of soda has high lead content, so we're issuing an emergency recall. You: But I like this soda! It tastes good! DE: It's not good for our customers or our business for there to be lead in the soda. You: NO! Bring back the lead-content soda! DE: Well, we can't do that, but here, we've added some sweeteners to make it taste more like the leaded soda you liked. You: NO! I don't want it to taste like the lead soda! I want the lead soda! Now! DE: Sir, lead is bad for you. You: I pay your salaries! You have to do what I say! After you bring back the lead soda, I want a gold-plated soda with diamonds on the can. You have to do this, because I've bought your soda, so now I get to rule the company. DE: Sir, please be reasonable. You: I want lead soda! I want lead soda! I want it back, now!