Why don't Rivens track Disposition?

[Ohmlink]

Not to mention the change was always intended and stated to happen. Some people were upset it wasn't changing.

[ReshyShira]

10 minutes ago, TheResult said:

Different complaint for a different thread. If you disagree with DE's choice in which Rivens were affected, that's something else; the point being made, however, is not that DE "did the stat changes wrong", it's that they made stat changes at all and the players complained because of their "investments" (which they chose to impose on themselves.)

It's... definitely not comparing "celery to apples", because I literally said "prime parts". You know, because those are also traded for with platinum. Apples and apples.

But just to clarify: you would prefer them to nerf the weapon itself, even though it would mean the exact same DPS decrease, instead of touching the Riven?
That's the distinction you want to make here? "Never change anything we can spend platinum on"?

Okay, but you can't fault players for choosing to try and get the most out of the rivens they have, or seeking out rivens that are the meta. But then DE goes and actively punishes players who follow the meta and didn't follow the speculative meta that doesn't actually exist. 

As far as I know, prime warframe and weapons don't get arbitrarily worse if more people use them.

I would prefer them to not touch existing rivens, not touch the rivens for weapons that need them to be competitive, and buff the endless pile of bad weapons that nobody uses even with a riven.

12 minutes ago, Erytroxylin said:

Because that's not the purpose of Rivens. The purpose of Rivens is to be a boost that changes based on weapon popularitu/strength.

Thing is that in a lot of cases rivens won't salvage the plethora of utterly bad weapons, and those weapons haven't been revisited for buffs.  Yet weapons that are really only usable with a riven get nerfs as harshly as weapons that are perfectly good without a riven. 

 

8 minutes ago, (PS4)drpunk-yo said:

There's buffs as well as nerfs, you know?

I can't believe anyone would want to miss out on riven buffs which is what the OP is suggesting.

Sure, nerfs suck. But look on the bright side instead.

Negativity bias, and the current meta compound the nerfs and obscure any buffs.  Most of the buffs were very slightly, but the nerfs were often much harsher in effect.  Not many new weapons became viable, but several weapons that were viable showed a significant slip in strength.

 

7 minutes ago, Nocontents said:

DE din't dealt the cards. You played the game and you lost. Simple as that.

Why is this so hard to understand?

You made a investment in meta riven, and you enjoyed. Many has.

And now, update happens and disposition gots updated.

Surprise, surprise. Because of how many ppl used the riven, disposition changed.

And somehow this is up to debate?

Uh, yes, actually DE does deal the cards, they stack the entire deck.  They can choose which weapons are free from riven nerfs, and in fact did so (Kohm, Detron).  This isn't a random event, don't construe it as such.  This is also far more comparable to swapping a number I already have in my hand out with another card of lesser value.

Edited November 9, 2018 by ReshyShira

[Nocontents]

Just now, Ohmlink said:

Not to mention the change was always intended and stated to happen. Some people were upset it wasn't changing.

I think it should change monthly or bi-weekly. I think in current state it creates meta because how slow disposition changes

[Ohmlink]

1 minute ago, Nocontents said:

I think it should change monthly or bi-weekly. I think in current state it creates meta because how slow disposition changes

As long as it's somewhat consistent it can change as much or as little as it wants.

[Nocontents]

1 minute ago, ReshyShira said:

Uh, yes, actually DE does deal the cards, they stack the entire deck.  They can choose which weapons are free from riven nerfs, and in fact did so (Kohm, Detron).  This isn't a random event, don't construe it as such.  This is also far more comparable to swapping a number I already have in my hand out with another card of lesser value.

Do you have a solid evidence that Kohm and Deltron is more used then nerfed riven? Do you have the statistic of weapon usage? Or are you just assuming Kohm and Detron deserves nerfs too because of you feelings?

And don't try to coy with me. DE may gives cards to you but what you did ultimately is that you played yourself. Disposition is *always* going to change until riven itself is gone.

[ReshyShira]

5 minutes ago, Nocontents said:

I think it should change monthly or bi-weekly. I think in current state it creates meta because how slow disposition changes

Seems like it'd make a flavor of the month sort of style, and with how few riven slots you get and how expensive they are... I can't imagine it'd be that healthy long-term.

[Nocontents]

Just now, ReshyShira said:

Seems like it'd make a flavor of the month sort of style, and with how few riven slots you get and how expensive they are... I can't imagine it'd be that healthy long-term.

Because riven itself isn't healthy long-term system to begin with.

It's just basically time sink for veteran player. It doesn't changes weapon drastically. Worst weapon still be worst and good weapon will still be great. it doesn't change meta or gun play at all.

 

[ReshyShira]

Just now, Nocontents said:

Because riven itself isn't healthy long-term system to begin with.

It's just basically time sink for veteran player. It doesn't changes weapon drastically. Worst weapon still be worst and good weapon will still be great. it doesn't change meta or gun play at all.

 

Invalidating that time sink is pretty S#&$ty though.  Additionally, if a weapon is unsalavagably bad even with a god-tier riven... why not rebalance it?

[rune_me]

6 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

Okay, but you can't fault players for choosing to try and get the most out of the rivens they have, or seeking out rivens that are the meta. But then DE goes and actively punishes players who follow the meta and didn't follow the speculative meta that doesn't actually exist. 

But once again, that was your choice. To stay with stock market metaphors, if you seek out the "meta" stocks that everyone is owning, then they will be expensive and not likely to earn you a lot of money any time soon. If rivens are an investment as you claim (which I'm not entirely convinced they should be considered), then the rules of investments applies: buy low, sell high. Invest in cheap rivens, then hold on to them and sell them when/if they become valuable. If you invest in the most expensive rivens out there, don't expect your investment to have any major payoff.

[Nocontents]

1 minute ago, ReshyShira said:

Invalidating that time sink is pretty S#&$ty though.  Additionally, if a weapon is unsalavagably bad even with a god-tier riven... why not rebalance it?

Riven is not time sink unlike most content in warframe.

It's pure RNG lootbox system. this system reinforce players to play kuva-themed slot machine.

It doesn't track how player grinded unlike credit or endo. It just pure luck and basically money grabbing system.

I throw DE money for plats because I do think that DE is very good game company which could use some support.

But I don't use money on riven because system itself is pretty shady and frankly insulting.

And yeah, terrible weapon should be re-balanced. What you said is true.

But riven first came out to be band-aid fixes for terrible weapon where it shouldn't be.

[Erytroxylin]

20 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

Yet weapons that are really only usable with a riven

There is no such thing. Every weapon that is good with a Riven is still perfectly capable of doing Sortie3/Arbitration no problem without one as well. And that's pretty much the hardest content the vast majority is going to face in the game. Nobody does 2 hour survival runs to get to higher difficulty, nor should game balance ever be based on the fraction of a fraction of a percent of the player base that randomly does it.

Edited November 9, 2018 by Erytroxylin

[(PSN)drpunk-yo]

21 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

 Most of the buffs were very slightly, but the nerfs were often much harsher in effect.

Well I still want the buffs, thanks.

And screw the meta.

[(XBOX)Danowat32]

As any good investor knows, the value of investments can go down as well as up. 

[TheResult]

Just now, ReshyShira said:

Okay, but you can't fault players for choosing to try and get the most out of the rivens they have, or seeking out rivens that are the meta. But then DE goes and actively punishes players who follow the meta and didn't follow the speculative meta that doesn't actually exist.

I'm not faulting players for "trying to get the most out of the Rivens they have"-- like I have already said, and you quoted me saying, I'm faulting players for blaming DE. I could not be more clear about that distinction. You seem to be confusing me with some of the other people you're talking to.

Maybe go ahead and get that sleep you said you needed. I'm not saying that to be "cute"-- I mean, literally, you will be able to think more clearly and form your thoughts better if you're rested, so please go do that before coming back, because it seems like you're getting some things confused.

13 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

As far as I know, prime warframe and weapons don't get arbitrarily worse if more people use them.

Is that what you want to choose to argue about now? Was your point not that Rivens were "bought and traded for with Platinum"? I need you to stop and actually choose to defend the things you're talking about, one at a time, instead of deflecting onto an entirely different arguing point with each iteration of the conversation.

Also, DE has always based their balance changes on how popular a weapon or Warframe is, because the community is definitely full of minmaxers and metaplayers. We're all aware of this, and so are they. They've shown us charts during Devstreams and said "look, look at these numbers, this is why we're making these changes." Rivens, themselves, were implemented based entirely on popularity. By their very nature, most things that get worse in this game get worse "because more people use them."

But that's getting off track, because I need to bring this back around to the point; your original argument, being that DE shouldn't change things that people have already spent platinum on/traded platinum for at all, whether you think those changes are "arbitrary" or not. Is that incorrect? Please answer this.

25 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

I would prefer them to not touch existing rivens, not touch the rivens for weapons that need them to be competitive, and buff the endless pile of bad weapons that nobody uses even with a riven.

That honestly just seems like a disastrous lead-in to powercreep. It also seems like deflecting, but I already addressed that ^ up there ^.

[TheResult]

21 minutes ago, Erytroxylin said:

There is no such thing. Every weapon that is good with a Riven is still perfectly capable of doing Sortie3/Arbitration no problem without one as well. And that's pretty much the hardest content the vast majority is going to face in the game. Nobody does 2 hour survival runs to get to higher difficulty, nor should game balance ever be based on the fraction of a fraction of a percent of the player base that randomly does it.

Unfortunate mindset of the playerbase; the game is "grinding", therefore "speed is king", and anything that kills enemies "too slowly" means that it is "entirely unusable." And once you have a weapon that kills enemies "in a certain amount of time", that immediately becomes the baseline, even if it's only 1% of the weapons in the game; players will complain if it becomes weaker, and the only solution they want is for everything else to be just as strong (ie. powercreep).

"The baseline" becomes "I should be able to kill a level 200 Corrupted Bombard with this weapon in 5 seconds flat", even though that's an entirely unnecessary amount of power.

[DerGreif2]

50 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

get the most out of the rivens they have, or seeking out rivens that are the meta.

Oh yes you can. The riven system is not stable and it never was intended. DE dont prized the rivens and decider the meta. Players did.

 

50 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

As far as I know, prime warframe and weapons don't get arbitrarily worse if more people use them.

Nope but they also not break the game. Mods do and Riven are the most powerful ones. That's common sense.

 

50 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

I would prefer them to not touch existing rivens,

That's not possible. It is not meant to be a stable system.

 

50 minutes ago, ReshyShira said:

Most of the buffs were very slightly, but the nerfs were often much harsher in effect.  Not many new weapons became viable, but several weapons that were viable showed a significant slip in strength.

We are in general to strong at the moment. Primed mods, rivens they make us to strong. DE can control what primed mods they give us but cant know how strong rivens make some weapons.

 

In the end the system is working again and that's a good thing. Some people lost because of there decisions. You have to get over it.

Edited November 9, 2018 by DerGreif2

[(PSN)randy_lahey__--]

Thank you so much for the disposition changes! Definitely going to be my favorite part of Fortuna!

[clxrffdman]

If they didnt lower stats for pre edisting rivens then their prices would be astronomical, making this worse.

[xyrhofire]

4 hours ago, ReshyShira said:

When a Riven drops, why don't they track their disposition?  It feels really unfair to have a riven's stats retroactively changed on you despite all the kuva or plat you might have invested into it.  I don't mind riven disposition being changed, but existing rivens should remain the same.

1. If existing riven remains the same, how about riven that got buffed? Do the owners get "legacy unbuffed riven" instead? I'm pretty sure more angry threads will appear. 

2. That hundred of thousands of kuva that got invested is still being reflected on the riven which is the number of rolls on it not the disposition. The plat, well, the players knew this risk and they took it. Now they have only themselves to blame.

[ReshyShira]

8 hours ago, DerGreif2 said:

Oh yes you can. The riven system is not stable and it never was intended. DE dont prized the rivens and decider the meta. Players did.

It's DE who made them tradable, who made them have high investment requirements to get anything good out of.  The perfect storm for absurdly high costing items.  This is entirely DE's fault, the players just saw an opportunity and took it.  Now going and blaming the players for DE's mistake isn't being fair at all to the players.

8 hours ago, DerGreif2 said:

That's not possible. It is not meant to be a stable system.

It's totally possible for them to do that.  It should be stable enough that players can make informed choices without feeling that DE's just exploiting them.

8 hours ago, DerGreif2 said:

TWe are in general to strong at the moment. Primed mods, rivens they make us to strong. DE can control what primed mods they give us but cant know how strong rivens make some weapons.

Have you seen the new kitguns?  They have better disposition than many secondary rivens and even crazier stats than anything released before.

8 hours ago, DerGreif2 said:

In the end the system is working again and that's a good thing. Some people lost because of there decisions. You have to get over it.

The riven system has been not-working from the start, and the new changes don't fix the inherent problem with rivens, or the ones that developed because DE doesn't understand how the player base works.

 

8 hours ago, TheResult said:

Unfortunate mindset of the playerbase; the game is "grinding", therefore "speed is king", and anything that kills enemies "too slowly" means that it is "entirely unusable." And once you have a weapon that kills enemies "in a certain amount of time", that immediately becomes the baseline, even if it's only 1% of the weapons in the game; players will complain if it becomes weaker, and the only solution they want is for everything else to be just as strong (ie. powercreep).

"The baseline" becomes "I should be able to kill a level 200 Corrupted Bombard with this weapon in 5 seconds flat", even though that's an entirely unnecessary amount of power.

Players want weapons that are good for the type of game Warframe usually is, typically those able to clear trash units and still be strong against heavy units.  Which is why I'm less broken up about the Arca Plasmor changes because it is genuinely widely used.  But then you see all the sniper rifles used for Eidolons all being nerfed at the same time, despite them being pretty useless for general play.  With how DE has shown they can play favorites, I strongly suspect that they're not balancing rivens entirely based on their usage but to drive players in a certain direction that's not entirely in line with the point of Rivens.  There's plenty of guns that only really work best with a Riven, and those get nerfed too despite the rivens doing their job as intended:  making an underused weapon good

8 hours ago, TheResult said:

I'm not faulting players for "trying to get the most out of the Rivens they have"-- like I have already said, and you quoted me saying, I'm faulting players for blaming DE. I could not be more clear about that distinction. You seem to be confusing me with some of the other people you're talking to.

Maybe go ahead and get that sleep you said you needed. I'm not saying that to be "cute"-- I mean, literally, you will be able to think more clearly and form your thoughts better if you're rested, so please go do that before coming back, because it seems like you're getting some things confused.

I'm blaming DE because they're retroactively changing things in the game that can be bought/sold with platinum, and that they can just choose to play favorites.

8 hours ago, TheResult said:

Also, DE has always based their balance changes on how popular a weapon or Warframe is, because the community is definitely full of minmaxers and metaplayers. We're all aware of this, and so are they. They've shown us charts during Devstreams and said "look, look at these numbers, this is why we're making these changes." Rivens, themselves, were implemented based entirely on popularity. By their very nature, most things that get worse in this game get worse "because more people use them."

But that's getting off track, because I need to bring this back around to the point; your original argument, being that DE shouldn't change things that people have already spent platinum on/traded platinum for at all, whether you think those changes are "arbitrary" or not. Is that incorrect? Please answer this.

They nerf popular weapons and often leave in languish the ever-increasing pile of weapons nobody cares about.  Rather than lifting up these old weapons they instead just nerf the already working ones much to the ire of well.. everyone.  And the changes are Arbitrary, just look at the changes for the Kohm/Detron, they said that, because they decided on their own that to use rivens get to stay really good while everything else gets a massive nerf to usability.

8 hours ago, TheResult said:

That honestly just seems like a disastrous lead-in to powercreep. It also seems like deflecting, but I already addressed that ^ up there ^.

Have you seen the new kitguns?  They're considerably more powerful than secondaries we've seen so far, and they'll have a higher disposition to boot!  De does the power creep to themselves, and the timing of this update makes me think they intentionally sabotaged rivens to make people pursue the newly released guns and their "fresh" 1.0 dispositions.

 

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

12 hours ago, ReshyShira said:

When a Riven drops, why don't they track their disposition?  It feels really unfair to have a riven's stats retroactively changed on you despite all the kuva or plat you might have invested into it.  I don't mind riven disposition being changed, but existing rivens should remain the same.

Because meta balance isn't something that is fixed.

EDIT: And the riven's stats didn't change, only the disposition modifier did.

Edited November 9, 2018 by (PS4)Hiero_Glyph

[ReshyShira]

5 minutes ago, (PS4)Hiero_Glyph said:

Because meta balance isn't something that is fixed.

EDIT: And the riven's stats didn't change, only the disposition modifier did.

Stats do change, they're modified by the disposition modifier.

[_xci_]

3 hours ago, ReshyShira said:

It's DE who made them tradable, who made them have high investment requirements to get anything good out of.  The perfect storm for absurdly high costing items.  This is entirely DE's fault, the players just saw an opportunity and took it.  Now going and blaming the players for DE's mistake isn't being fair at all to the players.

 

Then why some rivens are more expensive than the other? Why Lanka riven cost more than Ferrox riven, when they can be obtained the same way?

[ReshyShira]

2 hours ago, _xci_ said:

Then why some rivens are more expensive than the other? Why Lanka riven cost more than Ferrox riven, when they can be obtained the same way?

Probably because most people use the Lanka for the Eidolon, and it happens to be weak versus Radiation with the Lanka gets easy access to. 

[(PSN)Hiero_Glyph]

5 hours ago, ReshyShira said:

Stats do change, they're modified by the disposition modifier.

You are just looking at the stats after the disposition modifier is applied. The stats of the riven are fixed once you roll it. This allows DE to review data and adjust the dispositions over time without having to change the stats of every single riven for that weapon.

EDIT: Here's an example. Let's say your riven has a 50% electricity, 80% critical damage, and 60% multishot. If the disposition is 1.00 then you will see exactly these stats. If DE changes the disposition to 1.10 then you now see 55% electricity, 88% critical damage, and 66% multishot. The riven stats are still the same as listed previously, the modifier just changed.

Edited November 10, 2018 by (PS4)Hiero_Glyph