Jump to content

Bioboygamer

PC Member
  • Content Count

    61
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

196

About Bioboygamer

  • Rank
    Gold Initiate

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Did this on a whim before I even thought about the contest, so kinda low effort, but what the heck. Why not have a little fun with it?
  2. Well, the idea is that you can totally overpower it with normal attacks - It just doesn't STAY dead unless you use the Parazon. Or are you asking what's there to stop us from accidentally killing it before we can switch to our Parazon? Not sure in that case, but maybe it happens semi-automatically if the game detects that you have the correct Requiem mods for that Lich? It appears that Kuva Lich-influenced nodes will have an alternate version of the node where the Kuva Lich's effect applies. So, the only time you need to worry about stuff being stolen is when you're actively choosing to do Kuva Lich missions in order to get information on what Requiem mods are needed to take out that Lich. Don't know for sure, since it's not out yet, but that's my best guess. I mean, normally I'm the sort of person who would be in favor of nerfing things that are way better than the other possible options, but you bring up some good points. I don't know if the economic comparison makes all that much sense, but the bias of scale resulting from the lesser number of high-MR players is something I didn't even think of. It'd be interesting to see the flat numbers in addition to the percentages.
  3. Uh, I was there from the beginning of the stream to the end, and me and a bunch of other people only got one drop.
  4. Friendly reminder that in the last Dev stream, they talked about how they were moving things around into the arbitration shop. The ayatan sculpture was their example, but my guess is that that will include acting on the feedback from the threads. Trust me, I agree that they could have handled it a lot, lot better, but it looks like they're acting on it, so let's reserve judgement on that until we see exactly what changes were made. (this is coming from someone who basically made getting a response to the Arbitration feedback their personal crusade, so take that as you will...)
  5. Well, sure. It absolutely will. There are guaranteed to be all sorts of bugs in the release that will need to be hotfixed. Importantly, though, the number of game-breaking bugs that would make the game unplayable will be much, much lower. With the extra time, it’s much more likely that the game will at least be functional than if they released it as soon as it was technically feature-complete.
  6. Yeah, see, this give me a lot better context, and I now understand a lot better why these melee changes are causing the reaction they are. I suppose the crux of the matter is that, just from what I've heard about DE's stance on this, they do want there to eventually be a cutoff point for 'endless' modes. I'm not opposed to that, but I understand that there are certainly plenty of players who are, and I can't really say that I understand all this well enough to be certain about which view is correct. All I can really say is that I do think that the players who do long, high level endless mission runs are in the minority - albeit a loud and experienced minority, comprised of a significant number of veterans and players who have been supporting and playing Warframe for a long time - certainly longer than I have. It's been said before that, intended by the devs or not, these infinitely-scaling endless missions are the de facto 'endgame' of Warframe at the moment - in which case, the desire to keep the ability to play that hyper-difficult game mode is very understandable. In the absence of a more deliberately-designed endgame, it's only logical that enfranchised players would want to keep playing that content. Ultimately, it seems to me to be an issue created by the inherent weirdness of exponential, uncapped scaling, and continued and exacerbated by an unfortunate vicious cycle in the playerbase. We can't nerf the most effective strategies because it would leave players unable to survive the only 'endgame' content in the game, but we can't introduce new end-game content because the most effective strategies will tear through it in the span of a week or so. Buffing weaker weapons and strategies prompts outrage at the 'casualification' of the game, and introducing challenge by removing both the optimal strategies and the content it's necessary for would essentially mean excising the only 'endgame' we have. DE isn't willing to design content for 500+ enemy levels because they don't want to create gameplay that's only accessible for those who follow the meta - they want it to be potentially completeable given a high enough general quality of mods and gear, not dependent on having one specific combination. The way things are now, there's no real way for DE to make content that veterans will find challenging without essentially making it appear to be, if not actually be, comically impossible to anyone who isn't a diehard number-cruncher and meta build connoisseur. The best way to deal with that would probably be to phase out the most egregiously powerful combinations and effects, shortly before putting a hard cap on scaling content and introducing something new for veteran players to sink their teeth into. Then, with the problem resolved for as long as that new content lasts, they could find a way to fix endless missions so that they preserve an endlessly-escalating level of challenge without mandating the existence of builds that dwarf everything else in the game. Of course, I'm no professional game designer, so I'm sure there's all sorts of holes and flaws in my reasoning for all this, but that's my perspective on it, at least. It's not about DE caring or not caring about casuals or veterans or whatever - it's about trying to balance a system that's got a lot of inbuilt, fundamentally unbalanced factors. To fix it, there are likely going to be things people enjoy that end up being changed or even gutted - things enjoyed by people on either end of the scale - but ultimately, if handled correctly, it should end with something much more balanced, enjoyable, and successful long-term. But, again, that's just my view on it.
  7. Alright, I'm going to go over this in parts. If I don't respond to something, it's simply because I don't have anything meaningful to say about it - I'm not just picking and choosing to "win" the argument. The existence of a meta isn't something I have a problem with. My issue is that, at least as far as melee goes, there's maybe a handful of configurations that can be said to be 'viable', and many of them rely on the same set of mods. Sure, it's a meta, but it's not a healthy one. There should be at least a few ways of building that can get results that approach the ideal without having to rely on the same set of mods. I'll admit, I don't know too much about that - all I know is that DE is generally against the existence of non-reactive spin attack focused melee gameplay, as well as the existence of infinitely-scaling damage. I have no idea how that applies to things like arbitrations and sorties - I'm not a super-hardcore player - but I do know that things like multi-hour endless missions, while they are in the game, are not something that DE wants to focus on or enable. I'll concede that the enemy level in sorties and ESO should also be part of the balancing spectrum, but I do believe that they should be the upper end - balancing the game based on a theoretically infinite enemy level that most players won't interact with just seems silly to me. I suppose I din't exactly make my point very clear - I'm not talking about the difference between a player just starting or midway through the star chart and a player doing arbitration. In that scenario, it makes sense that there's a disparity in power. What I'm talking about is the difference between a player who has, or is just about to, finish the star chart and a player doing arbitration. Both players have the same options open to them, in theory. The difference is that one player has a build capable of fighting enemies with levels in the triple digits, and the other doesn't. That's the disparity I'm talking about - you have the entire star chart to go from enemy level 1 to 50 or 60, and then the enemy level skyrockets, and the player's only option is to put together one of a few 'meta' builds, which likely look nothing like what they were playing with before. Yeah, that's entirely fair. I guess it's hard for me to keep that in mind since I'm not yet at the point where that level of build synergy is mandatory. As I've mentioned a couple of times, though, it seems like the new melee system will also herald the start of DE finally fixing things like armor scaling, so hopefully that fixes some things. I suppose for someone who's at that point in the game, the changes have different ramifications than for someone like me. Again, fair. My hope is that these changes will bring things to a point where the prior one or two unbeatable strategies are still better than the old way of doing things, but also closer to the next best strategies. We don't know exactly what the numbers will look like, and this isn't even the end of the melee rework - there's still rage mode and anything that comes with it to consider. After all, this is the reason they're asking for our feedback - to figure out what's important and what's not, what should and shouldn't be kept. I am deeply, genuinely sorry for that. I've seen so many responses that ignore the aims and goals that DE has stated, that don't bother reading through the changes before lashing out, and so on, that I suppose I just assumed that you were no exception. Again, I'm so very sorry for that.
  8. Yeah, I think that's honestly a fair complaint. DE has said that these melee changes will be the start of them finally getting around to fixing armor scaling, so it's possible that the balance issues with the later part of the game will be toned down. I don't know about that. Sure, they're technically accessible, but they represent such a small percentage of the level of enemy a player could face that it's kind of silly to weight them too heavily when considering the game's balance.
  9. Because that's basically what the devs have said that they want? Because, to anyone not already neck-deep in the game, the star chart represents the entirety of the game? Because, in terms of assets and development, the star chart is essentially 90% of the game? Because having such a huge, huge, huge disparity between optimized and non optimized loadouts is absurd? Because there should be more than one or two meta-viable strategies in order to ensure that the supply and demand for certain mods isn't steeply inflated? I could probably go on, but hopefully you can see where I'm going with this.
  10. Well, they've said that these melee changes will be the start of "pulling off the band-aid" of fixing armor and scaling, so hopefully the answer could soon be both.
  11. Okay, I just want to say this. I'm on the opposite side of this - I'm not even at the point where I'm confident in my ability to do Sorties even with my tankiest frame. I have no interest in doing the super-difficult game modes, and I'm generally in favor of making "spin2win" less of a thing, since it means that melee loadouts are super-heavily weighted towards a handful of mods. But I have nothing but the upmost respect for you here. You're providing a counterpoint, but you're being respectful and thoughtful in how you do it. You're not blindly attacking everything the other person said, regardless of whether or not there was any truth to it. You're sharing your opinion and giving insight into a different perspective that others might not initially see. We may have different views on these melee changes and the validity of the current gameplay, but you are a gentleman and a scholar, and I applaud your poise and levelheadedness.
  12. I really don't know what you mean. You're not losing anything. In fact, you're getting something for free. Why is that a bad thing?
  13. So what? You know that you got one through your own effort - this doesn't change that fact. I would understand if it was an aesthetic thing, or a decoration or cosmetic, but it's an item with an in-game function. Wanting to limit access to that in-game functionality for everyone just because it would maybe make you feel less special is kinda uncool, don't you think?
  14. @[DE]Bear Sorry if this is bothering you, but I think it might be very useful to know... How does the feedback so far line up with what you were expecting? What concerns have people raised that you anticipated? What are some concerns and feedback that you didn't expect? Is there any feedback that isn't necessarily valid given Warframe's design direction and goals? As an example, some people are concerned that the removal of channeling will cause Life Strike to no longer be an effective way for more fragile frames to stay alive. Is that something you weren't anticipating, or were you aware that it might be an issue? Also, in particular, a lot of feedback is predicting that the changes will remove melee's ability to deal scaling damage, and as such will make it difficult or even impossible to do endurance/endless runs with high-level enemies. Is that an unintended consequence of the changes, or a deliberate design decision? I feel that knowing some of these things would help us to give more useful and more accurate feedback - we could refrain from repeating feedback that you're already aware of, and focus on the things that would truly help to fine-tune the melee system.
×
×
  • Create New...