Jump to content
Balistica

It breaks my heart that Hydroid is so bad

Recommended Posts

I don't really play hydroid because I see that he was really disruptive to his team if he was there and wasn't very appealing to play. So I'll post my ideas and see if you all agree or not.

(Passive) chest of greed- enemies killed in submerge give % of health, over Shields, or if not needed converts to increase loot drop for the team stacks up to 3x

The increased loot drop will function like an aura and if he is damaged it will drop a stack

1.) Submerge - creates up to 3x puddles which still function like undertow 

Submerge will accumulate damage much like Sayrn and the stacks will function like equinox

2.) Song of storms (Channeling) - summoning a storm Hydroid lures enemies into the vicinity lowering accuracy, deafening, and slowing while increasing all damage for submerge 

Trying to give hydroid much more team friendly CC Ability that encourages the inclusion in more team formats.

3.) Kraken - the kraken lurks in the puddles cast from oldest to newest lashing out to drag in unsuspecting enemies then deals toxin damage upon leaving if no puddles are available kraken will attack priming enemies for guaranteed energy and loot drops

Much like how most people use Hydroid for loot I decided to double down on it sense it would make since thematically. And the energy refund is a thing I included from nidus that would likely help his survivability.

4.) Anchor (Charging) - rising from the depths the anchor will buff nearby allies attack power and take % of damage dealt stored from submerge to further increase the buff while summoning hydroid is locked in place being invulnerable and upon releasing the anchor it drags surrounding enemies together instantly falling back to the depths giving a mutiplier and the number of enemies grabbed to the accumulated submerge damage.

When thinking about Hydroid I gave him good damage, CC, Survivability and so I wanted to give him a supportive 4th ability. So I gave him an attack buff where he'll be rooted so he won't overwhelm the team by submerging all the enemies and let the allies do what they need to ,But if he gets overrun this allows him to fill the gap with a brief time to think akin to Atlas's 4 and Harrow's 3 and 4.

Please leave helpful criticism because I think Hydroid has the ability to be a great and fun frame to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just make it so the tentacle beast you summon can move around and follow you, and make his 1 rain on the enemies near you, not just a particular spot, that'd make Hydroid a more fun "in your face" frame, he's pretty tanky anyway, at the cost of taking away his ability to camp survival.

To camp in survival (and defense), Khora is probably the better choice anyway. Hydroid's toolkit is too stationary, there's a reason why no one plays him beside survival, and there're frames that does it better without having to charge up abilities.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Izumi_S said:

Just make it so the tentacle beast you summon can move around and follow you, and make his 1 rain on the enemies near you, not just a particular spot, that'd make Hydroid a more fun "in your face" frame, he's pretty tanky anyway, at the cost of taking away his ability to camp survival.

To camp in survival (and defense), Khora is probably the better choice anyway. Hydroid's toolkit is too stationary, there's a reason why no one plays him beside survival, and there're frames that does it better without having to charge up abilities.

We're you responding to me or the Op?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, (PS4)sonicizanagi said:

We're you responding to me or the Op?

The op. Just my take on the Hydroid if it ever gets reworked again.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

I'm pretty awful with words sometimes.  The first time I use the phrase i'm trying to say that the wording is a bit misleading.  And the second one you're right on.

No when I say viable I mean viable.  The parameters on what is considered viable is just different between you and me.

I'm not sure what is confusing about that statement.  There are other frames that actually struggle to have a cohesive thing going on.  Where as Hydroid is perfectly fine where he's at as a cc machine.  The reason I mentioned the "meta tier" thing is because it's quite a common site for me to see people saying x frame needs to be better because y frame does what x does but better.  Or makes x frame irrelevant.  Basically I don't believe a frame needs to be the best at what it does to be considered relevant/viable/etc.  (hence meta tier.)

Wukong, Revenant, Chroma, Titania, Nyx, Ember, Vauban, Mirage, Atlas, Valkyr.

It seems like you're basing who needs reworked heavily on kit cohesion and synergy.  Which is for sure a factor but we aren't going to agree that Hydroid has good synergy between his abilities.  But I agree that these characters (especially Valkyr and Wu) have poor kit health. 

Can you provide me a reason it's bad to want all the frames to be of similar viability.  I'm 100% positive this is a view point no developer has ever taken unless it's made for new players.

CC is bad right now, but his CC is especially bad, and I've gone all over why his CC is bad.  You can scroll up I guess, but I really don't think we're gonna agree.

I don't understand why it's wrong to compare frames to eachother to determine value.  We know how well characters in similar roles function, so why wouldn't we want them all to be of a similar functionality.  Also, your retelling of my system for determining how good a frame is, is VERY reductive.  I went extensively through how we can objectively determine if a character below the bar in it's specialties.  If your point is that his CC outweighs his other flaws, we have nothing left to talk about.  I made it very clear that I was using all the frames in the game as a reference to determine an average usability, then comparing him to all of them in special categories he shares.  That is obviously not cherry picking top tier characters for comparison.  So saying I'm only considering top tier characters as viable is dishonest and R E D U C T I V E.  

idk it seems like all you care about is the semantics.  If you wanna claim the word viability and make it based on how cohesive the kits are, that's fine I guess.  Instead of viable I'll say "Hydroid is not as good as a large chunk of the roster".  Is that a fair statement?   By my definition that means not viable, but i hope this now conforms to your version of the word.

Also I want to know, is it wrong to compare characters based on data gathered from gameplay?  All games with the money to do so compare statistics and try to round characters up or down based on their performance.  But it seems like you're saying that's wrong to do because it's technically comparing x frame and y frame.  If we can't do that how do we gather information?  If you believe I'm choosing a specific part of the kits like, Hildryn's CC vs Hydroid's, but not looking at the other values they bring to the table, then you aren't reading my posts, or you're being intentionally ignorant to my points.

Big Final Point !  I want Hydroid to be as good as the average character cast, while also acknowledging that there are other characters that need to be changed.  If you believe Hydroid is as good as the average cast member in similar content, we disagree fundamentally and should just stop talking.  If you believe Hydroid shouldn't be changed because it's valuable time that could be spent on other frames, that's fine, we're good then.  But if you think Hydroid should stay the same because it's ok to have characters that are worse than the average frame, we disagree fundamentally, and I would be shocked to death.  (I don't think you believe that though)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, (PS4)sonicizanagi said:

I don't really play hydroid because I see that he was really disruptive to his team if he was there and wasn't very appealing to play. So I'll post my ideas and see if you all agree or not.

(Passive) chest of greed- enemies killed in submerge give % of health, over Shields, or if not needed converts to increase loot drop for the team stacks up to 3x

The increased loot drop will function like an aura and if he is damaged it will drop a stack

1.) Submerge - creates up to 3x puddles which still function like undertow 

Submerge will accumulate damage much like Sayrn and the stacks will function like equinox

2.) Song of storms (Channeling) - summoning a storm Hydroid lures enemies into the vicinity lowering accuracy, deafening, and slowing while increasing all damage for submerge 

Trying to give hydroid much more team friendly CC Ability that encourages the inclusion in more team formats.

3.) Kraken - the kraken lurks in the puddles cast from oldest to newest lashing out to drag in unsuspecting enemies then deals toxin damage upon leaving if no puddles are available kraken will attack priming enemies for guaranteed energy and loot drops

Much like how most people use Hydroid for loot I decided to double down on it sense it would make since thematically. And the energy refund is a thing I included from nidus that would likely help his survivability.

4.) Anchor (Charging) - rising from the depths the anchor will buff nearby allies attack power and take % of damage dealt stored from submerge to further increase the buff while summoning hydroid is locked in place being invulnerable and upon releasing the anchor it drags surrounding enemies together instantly falling back to the depths giving a mutiplier and the number of enemies grabbed to the accumulated submerge damage.

When thinking about Hydroid I gave him good damage, CC, Survivability and so I wanted to give him a supportive 4th ability. So I gave him an attack buff where he'll be rooted so he won't overwhelm the team by submerging all the enemies and let the allies do what they need to ,But if he gets overrun this allows him to fill the gap with a brief time to think akin to Atlas's 4 and Harrow's 3 and 4.

Please leave helpful criticism because I think Hydroid has the ability to be a great and fun frame to play.

I like this stuff (not as much as I like my own because I think very highly of myself and my own ideas) but I think abilities that hold you in place are very bad for gameplay.  I think Inaros is a great example of that.  It might be a little anecdotal, but I feel like it's slows my gameplay down and is a total fun reducer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Balistica said:

I like this stuff (not as much as I like my own because I think very highly of myself and my own ideas) but I think abilities that hold you in place are very bad for gameplay.  I think Inaros is a great example of that.  It might be a little anecdotal, but I feel like it's slows my gameplay down and is a total fun reducer.

Can you explain further with what you dislike? I would really like to hear feedback.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you should rarely implement abilities that take you out of the movement system.  On paper it seems like a good way to balance an ability with its own power, but it stops the movement system.  Stopping a frame completely and especially attacking ends up being a fun cap.  Even though it seems like a really easy way to balance it out, I think it's better for fun levels to take a different, more creative approach to balancing it, that doesn't stop core gameplay.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, musicalsocks23 said:

However, Khora has the ability to cast two strangledomes; a benefit right? Wrong. The base efficiency of Khora is much lower than Hydroid which results in very rarely being able to feasibly sustain both strangledomes

(emphasis added)

Really? This is what you are going with? Surely not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Balistica said:

I think you should rarely implement abilities that take you out of the movement system.  On paper it seems like a good way to balance an ability with its own power, but it stops the movement system.  Stopping a frame completely and especially attacking ends up being a fun cap.  Even though it seems like a really easy way to balance it out, I think it's better for fun levels to take a different, more creative approach to balancing it, that doesn't stop core gameplay.  

So is Nidus and Harrow's 4 bad because  for having this pause, That is what I'm referring to the small pause/root that happens Also besides the root comment is there anything else in my proposed kit that you have and criticism for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-05-15 at 1:36 AM, Balistica said:

It seems like you're basing who needs reworked heavily on kit cohesion and synergy.  Which is for sure a factor but we aren't going to agree that Hydroid has good synergy between his abilities.  But I agree that these characters (especially Valkyr and Wu) have poor kit health. 

Can you provide me a reason it's bad to want all the frames to be of similar viability.  I'm 100% positive this is a view point no developer has ever taken unless it's made for new players.

CC is bad right now, but his CC is especially bad, and I've gone all over why his CC is bad.  You can scroll up I guess, but I really don't think we're gonna agree.

I don't understand why it's wrong to compare frames to eachother to determine value.  We know how well characters in similar roles function, so why wouldn't we want them all to be of a similar functionality.  Also, your retelling of my system for determining how good a frame is, is VERY reductive.  I went extensively through how we can objectively determine if a character below the bar in it's specialties.  If your point is that his CC outweighs his other flaws, we have nothing left to talk about.  I made it very clear that I was using all the frames in the game as a reference to determine an average usability, then comparing him to all of them in special categories he shares.  That is obviously not cherry picking top tier characters for comparison.  So saying I'm only considering top tier characters as viable is dishonest and R E D U C T I V E.  

idk it seems like all you care about is the semantics.  If you wanna claim the word viability and make it based on how cohesive the kits are, that's fine I guess.  Instead of viable I'll say "Hydroid is not as good as a large chunk of the roster".  Is that a fair statement?   By my definition that means not viable, but i hope this now conforms to your version of the word.

Also I want to know, is it wrong to compare characters based on data gathered from gameplay?  All games with the money to do so compare statistics and try to round characters up or down based on their performance.  But it seems like you're saying that's wrong to do because it's technically comparing x frame and y frame.  If we can't do that how do we gather information?  If you believe I'm choosing a specific part of the kits like, Hildryn's CC vs Hydroid's, but not looking at the other values they bring to the table, then you aren't reading my posts, or you're being intentionally ignorant to my points.

Big Final Point !  I want Hydroid to be as good as the average character cast, while also acknowledging that there are other characters that need to be changed.  If you believe Hydroid is as good as the average cast member in similar content, we disagree fundamentally and should just stop talking.  If you believe Hydroid shouldn't be changed because it's valuable time that could be spent on other frames, that's fine, we're good then.  But if you think Hydroid should stay the same because it's ok to have characters that are worse than the average frame, we disagree fundamentally, and I would be shocked to death.  (I don't think you believe that though)

 

Not entirely.  I don't believe kits need to have built in synergy to be considered good.  Rhino and frost are both good examples of that.  I'm merely stating that it's a good thing to have.  I think Hydroid's kit works well with itself.  He's kind of a lock down specialist.  Using his 1 and 4 to keep enemies locked down in a big area or spamming his 1 a few times at a choke point to slow it.  His puddle also does this and allows you to suspend high enemy threats by grabbing them into your puddle.

Similar viability =/= meta tier.  It would help me understand you more if you could point out a frame that you think is a good example of what other frames should be like and it's not a meta frame.  I never have made excuses for issues he has.  I merely stated I enjoy his kit right now and I don't think it's in dire shape compared to some other frames.  I'm perfectly okay with making adjustments like changing what stat his puddle's size is determined by or making his passive something actually useful.  Giving him an overhaul level of attention though is something I don't think is required.

I can't really agree or disagree with that statement as that requires me to have the mindset of optimal play of which i've never cared for.  All that matters to me is capability.  In my eyes Any mission you'd want to bring a cc based frame on I think Hydroid performs just fine in.  Providing that you don't care at all about finishing in a specific time.  The fact that I can go into say, interception with another group of people who are also playing sub-optimally and we don't struggle to hit the full rotation before bouncing out mean's hes fine to me.  I don't really play any of warframe's "pinnicle" content beyond arbitrations and the occasional sortie.

In my prior post I didn't state anywhere that comparing frames is wrong.  My specific problem is WHAT people do with that information.  A good example is pre rework Nezha.  He was literally a slightly worse version of Rhino but faster.  And that was fine.  But people always thought he was terrible.  Am I saying I didn't want him to be reworked?  Of course not.  My point is people spread sheet the game too hard.  Practically nothing in the game requires that level of efficiency unless you're specifically trying to have the newest content as quickly as possible.  This doesn't mean frames should never be looked into if they're viable.  It means that people shouldn't discard another frame JUST because a better frame exists.

I'm not saying Hydroid is fine as is and if I meant that my opening statement to the thread wouldn't have been "hydroid has issues."  What issues he might have and how much he should change based on said issues is where we will not see 100% eye to eye.  We both agree he could use some love.  I personally believe that other frames deserve the teams attention first.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-05-14 at 1:56 PM, EinheriarJudith said:

people say it all the time how loki does nyxs job better. its become so annoying. the overlap in this game is ridiculous. ive said it before DE needs to stop making frames and fix broken systems.

i'd be perfectly fine if DE halted production of content to make every frame more polished and addressed/fixed the games core flaws.  But that's not going to happen because warframe isn't dying and the devs are apart of a company and companies need to make money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think anyone, including OP, has said Hydroid needs attention now. In fact, I'm pretty sure OP and others have said that while Hydroid definitely needs attention other frames will need it even more and should be worked on first.

I still think even as a CC frame Hydroid leaves a lot to be desired and can at times annoyingly impede teammate progress with his 4. 

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, (NSW)SantCruz said:

I don't think anyone, including OP, has said Hydroid needs attention now. In fact, I'm pretty sure OP and others have said that while Hydroid definitely needs attention other frames will need it even more and should be worked on first.

I still think even as a CC frame Hydroid leaves a lot to be desired and can at times annoyingly impede teammate progress with his 4. 

I never said other frames should come before Hydroid, I just said 1 frame deserves it more.  (Wukong)  That being said Hydroid's needs to be addressed first, since his rework came and quietly slipped away before his issues were solved.  This means while Wukong's rework is imminent, Hydroid's next rework if allowed to continue in his state, will be years from now.  No better time to bring it up then now.  I also relate closely to other people wanting reworks for poor frames, so I understand why people would think others need it more.

Edited by Balistica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

Not entirely.  I don't believe kits need to have built in synergy to be considered good.  Rhino and frost are both good examples of that.  I'm merely stating that it's a good thing to have.  I think Hydroid's kit works well with itself.  He's kind of a lock down specialist.  Using his 1 and 4 to keep enemies locked down in a big area or spamming his 1 a few times at a choke point to slow it.  His puddle also does this and allows you to suspend high enemy threats by grabbing them into your puddle.

Similar viability =/= meta tier.  It would help me understand you more if you could point out a frame that you think is a good example of what other frames should be like and it's not a meta frame.  I never have made excuses for issues he has.  I merely stated I enjoy his kit right now and I don't think it's in dire shape compared to some other frames.  I'm perfectly okay with making adjustments like changing what stat his puddle's size is determined by or making his passive something actually useful.  Giving him an overhaul level of attention though is something I don't think is required.

I can't really agree or disagree with that statement as that requires me to have the mindset of optimal play of which i've never cared for.  All that matters to me is capability.  In my eyes Any mission you'd want to bring a cc based frame on I think Hydroid performs just fine in.  Providing that you don't care at all about finishing in a specific time.  The fact that I can go into say, interception with another group of people who are also playing sub-optimally and we don't struggle to hit the full rotation before bouncing out mean's hes fine to me.  I don't really play any of warframe's "pinnicle" content beyond arbitrations and the occasional sortie.

In my prior post I didn't state anywhere that comparing frames is wrong.  My specific problem is WHAT people do with that information.  A good example is pre rework Nezha.  He was literally a slightly worse version of Rhino but faster.  And that was fine.  But people always thought he was terrible.  Am I saying I didn't want him to be reworked?  Of course not.  My point is people spread sheet the game too hard.  Practically nothing in the game requires that level of efficiency unless you're specifically trying to have the newest content as quickly as possible.  This doesn't mean frames should never be looked into if they're viable.  It means that people shouldn't discard another frame JUST because a better frame exists.

I'm not saying Hydroid is fine as is and if I meant that my opening statement to the thread wouldn't have been "hydroid has issues."  What issues he might have and how much he should change based on said issues is where we will not see 100% eye to eye.  We both agree he could use some love.  I personally believe that other frames deserve the teams attention first.

This seemed like the long way to say you don't care how fast or how well the characters do the content, as long as all the characters have access to (most of) it.  If that's true I'd like you to confirm whether you think the characters should or shouldn't be the same quality.  

Your entire second paragraph is yikes.  I feel like I've been crucified to comparing Hydroid to other frames, but now you specifically want one.  I feel like you have some stigma against the word meta as well, that's why I've been refraining from using it.  Why would I want Hydroid to be like a frame that's not meta?  All frames should be similar in usability to the roster of meta frames.  Don't mistake usability for able to be used "at all", I mean all characters should be able to be used at the same effectiveness in the same content as other frames.  If you disagree with that I'll explode. 

I will clarify though, when I say average, I mean meta, because I believe a huge amount of the cast is equally viable in most gamemodes.  

Ok, in your 4th paragraph, you are stating a lot of things and not making it clear to me why they are bad.  Why is it bad that Nezha was compared to a poorer Rhino, didn't that result in him being reworked and given an identity that is his own?  Why is it bad for everyone to spreadsheet the game?  How can you say someone SHOULD play a character even if it's measurably worse than another character that fulfills the same role?  The reality is even if they SHOULD people won't play him.  Nobody else is going to think they owe it to Hydroid to play him in high tier content even though he's worse.  That's a bad thing if you believe no one playing a frame is a bad thing.  Saying they should isn't actually an effective plan to get people to play a character.

But it seems like in your 3rd paragraph you conceded that you don't play the max content, don't care about effectiveness of the frame, and are basing your balance on common missions.  If a frame is "fine" at normal tier, but completely outclassed in high tier, is that a problem to you.  If he were made better in higher tier without jeopardizing your normal gameplay, what is there to disagree with.  A game that struggles with this a lot is For Honor, being that they have 4v4 modes, as well as a higher class of dueling players who figure out the intricacies of their characters and bring flaws to light.  They balance for both though, because to balance for one or the other would be very unhealthy for 1 of the demographics of players.  

What I am getting at, is that it's unfair for you to say that Hydroid is ok, when I am impeded greatly in playing him in my content.

I truly want to know though, do you think all characters should be able to be used in the same level of content at the same effectiveness?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Balistica said:

This seemed like the long way to say you don't care how fast or how well the characters do the content, as long as all the characters have access to (most of) it.  If that's true I'd like you to confirm whether you think the characters should or shouldn't be the same quality.  

If you're specifically asking me if I think all warframes should be meta/best then I can't answer that.  Because it's completely unrealistic to try and make everything the best.  Something will always be better than another.  I think choice is important.  I think someone should choose a frame to play because that frame does something that could be compared to a side grade.  I don't think people should be picking frames purely on what is considered the best.

10 hours ago, Balistica said:

Your entire second paragraph is yikes.  I feel like I've been crucified to comparing Hydroid to other frames, but now you specifically want one.  I feel like you have some stigma against the word meta as well, that's why I've been refraining from using it.  Why would I want Hydroid to be like a frame that's not meta?  All frames should be similar in usability to the roster of meta frames.  Don't mistake usability for able to be used "at all", I mean all characters should be able to be used at the same effectiveness in the same content as other frames.  If you disagree with that I'll explode. 

I have made zero assumptions of you so i'd ask that you'd refrain from making assumptions about me.  You didn't do what I asked of you.  Which was to give me a standard of a hero that isn't currently meta.  I asked this to establish a baseline of what you believe is a good designed warframe because this will help me understand what you want better.  I specifically asked you to avoid picking a meta frame because what is "best" isn't always what is "healthy" for the game.  Since you gave a for honor example I can equate this to Nobushi for 4v4.  She's S tier in dominion on her own for very bad reasons.  So if you'd picked a "nobushi" for your warframe example it would make it hard to establish exactly what you think is a good design.  Does this make sense?

10 hours ago, Balistica said:

I will clarify though, when I say average, I mean meta, because I believe a huge amount of the cast is equally viable in most gamemodes.  

Ok, in your 4th paragraph, you are stating a lot of things and not making it clear to me why they are bad.  Why is it bad that Nezha was compared to a poorer Rhino, didn't that result in him being reworked and given an identity that is his own?  Why is it bad for everyone to spreadsheet the game?  How can you say someone SHOULD play a character even if it's measurably worse than another character that fulfills the same role?  The reality is even if they SHOULD people won't play him.  Nobody else is going to think they owe it to Hydroid to play him in high tier content even though he's worse.  That's a bad thing if you believe no one playing a frame is a bad thing.  Saying they should isn't actually an effective plan to get people to play a character.

I didn't say that it was bad that Nezha was compared to Rhino.  What was bad was that Nezha was considered bad BECAUSE he was a worse rhino.  As i've already stated a frame doesn't need to be the best at what it does in order to be a good frame.  You'd have to ask the person who reworked him.  afaik that guy does reworks entirely based on what he feels like doing.  Not because of community opinion/influence.  There is nothing wrong with wanting to play optimally.  The issue arises when you try to invalidate things in an empirical matter just because it's not optimal.  You're completely misunderstanding my points in an aggressive manner and i'm going to stop responding if you can't actually take what i'm saying at face value.

10 hours ago, Balistica said:

But it seems like in your 3rd paragraph you conceded that you don't play the max content, don't care about effectiveness of the frame, and are basing your balance on common missions.  If a frame is "fine" at normal tier, but completely outclassed in high tier, is that a problem to you.  If he were made better in higher tier without jeopardizing your normal gameplay, what is there to disagree with.  A game that struggles with this a lot is For Honor, being that they have 4v4 modes, as well as a higher class of dueling players who figure out the intricacies of their characters and bring flaws to light.  They balance for both though, because to balance for one or the other would be very unhealthy for 1 of the demographics of players.  

Just because I do not do things like eidilon hunting or orb mother fights doesn't mean i'm ignorant about what does and doesn't work well at that level.  You should stop assuming things about me.  It's irritating.  I personally like the fact that there is content in warframe that not every frame/weapon is good at.  It means loadouts are actually important to a degree.  For honor struggles because it's built on a flawed battle system.  Not because the developers are clueless about hero design.  that in itself is a seperate issue.  And they absolutely should ignore balance for duels if they don't plan on addressing the games base mechanics ever.  Because as is in order to make a hero truly viable at high level play in a duel you have to absolutely over tune them.

10 hours ago, Balistica said:

What I am getting at, is that it's unfair for you to say that Hydroid is ok, when I am impeded greatly in playing him in my content.

I truly want to know though, do you think all characters should be able to be used in the same level of content at the same effectiveness?

What i'm getting at is that in nearly every piece of content in the game Hydroid can compete just fine with other CC frames.  What i'm getting at is what I already stated.  That he has issues that should be looked at.  I just don't think he's as bad off as you believe.  And I certainly don't think he should be worked on priority wise over any of the frames that I already listed.  You're being needlessly confrontational just because I didn't 100% agree with you.

you already asked me this at the start of your reply.

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So 1, I'm not asking for a descriptive statement of the game, I'm asking for a prescription.  I understand it's very hard to get all characters perfectly balanced, and even harder to measure it.  But the question I'm asking isn't whether it's possible, I'm asking if it's a goal to strive towards.  That's why I asked it twice, because I was interested to see if you would conflate how things ARE with how things SHOULD be.  That's also why I've been capitalizing like a freak, it's not supposed to be aggressive.  Truthfully this was a trick question.

2, I've not made any assumptions about you, I could have easily just stated that you think these things.  But rather, I prefaced my statements with "It seems" or "I feel", because I cannot claim to know what you think, but also these allow room for you to contest these claims.  I intentionally didn't give you an answer, but instead attacked the word meta, because I felt you might've been presupposing that the word "meta" had a negative connotation, and I didn't want to spend a whole post debunking a gotcha.  It seemed like it could've been the case because of your persistent use of the word meta in our posts, even though I was specifically not using that word.  Ultimately we were going to need to define it so I just jumped right to.

I also did answer, I said I wouldn't pick a single character but a roster of characters.  Whoever is at the top is probably who I want all the frames to be closest to.  I couldn't say who is at the top right now, maybe Saryn, but I think this is sufficient for a viability range.  (I would say octavia but she fails on a fun level I think)  

3, I thought this was the least inflammatory piece of my post.  My intention was not to pretend I couldn't grasp what you're saying, but it seemed like you were only reinforcing your points with "bad because bad".  Even though I assumed you had reasonable underlying facts to back this up, I didn't understand what they were.  But I understand now this is another semantics issue.  I don't care if Nezha was bad or good.  Nezha was worse than Rhino and that's where I take issue.  Even if he is still good, I believe firmly that there is a large audience of players who opt to play what is best for their mission.  You'll have to step into another frame of mind here, but if you believe it is more fun for you to play a sub-par character and take the hit to effectiveness, that's perfectly fine.  I'm suggesting though, that there are people who have more fun playing what is good than what they want.  These people probably wish a bunch of frames met that criteria for them to play.  

So what I'm saying is, your foundational framework for what makes a frame good or bad, is completely subjective.  All that matters is results, and if people think Nezha is bad from their point of view, then they won't play, which I think is bad.  I want both, to play what is on par with the meta, and what I want.  I don't think this point of view can be wrong, because I believe what is "fun" is ingrained subconsciously into people.  So even if you told me I was wrong for thinking Nezha was bad, I don't think I could will myself into enjoying playing him.  

"It means that people shouldn't discard another frame JUST because a better frame exists."  But they do, and there are a lot of us, so what do we do?

4, I stand by what I said in that paragraph.  You stated yourself that you do no like doing pinnacle content, so I was just reiterating that.  From what I've read, it matters not to you how good a character is, as long as it is capable of participating in high level content at all.  You are welcome to correct me on that if you wish.  

"In my eyes Any mission you'd want to bring a cc based frame on I think Hydroid performs just fine in.  Providing that you don't care at all about finishing in a specific time."  I thought this was referring to very casual gameplay, if this was in reference to high level content as well, then I guess my b.

But lastly, I asked the same question twice because I wanted to know your answer as to what we SHOULD do.  Not what IS, or what IS GOING TO BE.  Would we achieve a larger net happiness from all the characters being the same viability, or having characters that are on different levels.  I believe the most people would be happy, if all the characters were usable at all levels.  

Also I really don't mean anything aggressive with the caps, I'm just using them for emphasis.

Also Also, we should hash this out in voice at some point, it might be fun.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Balistica said:

So 1, I'm not asking for a descriptive statement of the game, I'm asking for a prescription.  I understand it's very hard to get all characters perfectly balanced, and even harder to measure it.  But the question I'm asking isn't whether it's possible, I'm asking if it's a goal to strive towards.  That's why I asked it twice, because I was interested to see if you would conflate how things ARE with how things SHOULD be.  That's also why I've been capitalizing like a freak, it's not supposed to be aggressive.  Truthfully this was a trick question.

I can agree that a goal to strive for is to have a better baseline standard of frames.  I can't agree that we should be striving to make hero's meta capable.

19 hours ago, Balistica said:

2, I've not made any assumptions about you, I could have easily just stated that you think these things.  But rather, I prefaced my statements with "It seems" or "I feel", because I cannot claim to know what you think, but also these allow room for you to contest these claims.  I intentionally didn't give you an answer, but instead attacked the word meta, because I felt you might've been presupposing that the word "meta" had a negative connotation, and I didn't want to spend a whole post debunking a gotcha.  It seemed like it could've been the case because of your persistent use of the word meta in our posts, even though I was specifically not using that word.  Ultimately we were going to need to define it so I just jumped right to.

I also did answer, I said I wouldn't pick a single character but a roster of characters.  Whoever is at the top is probably who I want all the frames to be closest to.  I couldn't say who is at the top right now, maybe Saryn, but I think this is sufficient for a viability range.  (I would say octavia but she fails on a fun level I think)  

I don't think of the word meta as a negative thing.  As I feel like i've mentioned before I do think it's 100% fine to have "best of the best" things.  I just don't think Meta based things should ever be the critera of change for other things.  Saryn and octavia are both meta frames at the moment and both are frames I personally would not pick as a goal to work towards for other frames.  In my mind we should be shooting for more heros Like Excalibur, Harrow, and Nezha.

19 hours ago, Balistica said:

3, I thought this was the least inflammatory piece of my post.  My intention was not to pretend I couldn't grasp what you're saying, but it seemed like you were only reinforcing your points with "bad because bad".  Even though I assumed you had reasonable underlying facts to back this up, I didn't understand what they were.  But I understand now this is another semantics issue.  I don't care if Nezha was bad or good.  Nezha was worse than Rhino and that's where I take issue.  Even if he is still good, I believe firmly that there is a large audience of players who opt to play what is best for their mission.  You'll have to step into another frame of mind here, but if you believe it is more fun for you to play a sub-par character and take the hit to effectiveness, that's perfectly fine.  I'm suggesting though, that there are people who have more fun playing what is good than what they want.  These people probably wish a bunch of frames met that criteria for them to play.  

I'm fully aware of people who play optimally.  I don't know how many times I have to restate this.  The mindset of playing optimally isn't the problem.  It's when you try to superimpose that frame of mind on the game to make changes.  There is nothing wrong with wanting better frames.  There is something wrong with calling something objectively bad because there is a better frame.

19 hours ago, Balistica said:

So what I'm saying is, your foundational framework for what makes a frame good or bad, is completely subjective.  All that matters is results, and if people think Nezha is bad from their point of view, then they won't play, which I think is bad.  I want both, to play what is on par with the meta, and what I want.  I don't think this point of view can be wrong, because I believe what is "fun" is ingrained subconsciously into people.  So even if you told me I was wrong for thinking Nezha was bad, I don't think I could will myself into enjoying playing him.  

"It means that people shouldn't discard another frame JUST because a better frame exists."  But they do, and there are a lot of us, so what do we do?

And your opinion is also completely subjective.  This is a discussion not rehashing facts for some kind of document.  Pointing this out doesn't do your argument any good and is an example of what I dislike about having a discourse from you.  "if someone thinks a frame is bad they won't play them and I think that's bad."  That's far too black and white to have any sort of healthy view about the game.  You're not wrong for having your opinion.  You get into the wrong when you try to change the game based on optimal play alone.  What do we do?  Uh.  We actually discuss the thing.  We don't immediately make changes.  As I said.  I think Warframe choice should be akin to side grade changes.  That way choice matters.  If we only go by what is best then player choice is lost and thus things become boring from a design standpoint because power creep comes into play.

19 hours ago, Balistica said:

4, I stand by what I said in that paragraph.  You stated yourself that you do no like doing pinnacle content, so I was just reiterating that.  From what I've read, it matters not to you how good a character is, as long as it is capable of participating in high level content at all.  You are welcome to correct me on that if you wish.  

"In my eyes Any mission you'd want to bring a cc based frame on I think Hydroid performs just fine in.  Providing that you don't care at all about finishing in a specific time."  I thought this was referring to very casual gameplay, if this was in reference to high level content as well, then I guess my b.

I noted that I do not play in pinnacle content for reasons.  One because said pinnacle content isn't really relevant for most players.  And two because the game is primarily focused around farming things that are not pinnacle content.  So if hydroid is comparable to other cc frames in regards to farming then I don't feel the urgency.

19 hours ago, Balistica said:

But lastly, I asked the same question twice because I wanted to know your answer as to what we SHOULD do.  Not what IS, or what IS GOING TO BE.  Would we achieve a larger net happiness from all the characters being the same viability, or having characters that are on different levels.  I believe the most people would be happy, if all the characters were usable at all levels.  

Also I really don't mean anything aggressive with the caps, I'm just using them for emphasis.

Also Also, we should hash this out in voice at some point, it might be fun.

I'll restate.  I think having a better baseline for what warframes should be like is something to shoot for.  I think trying to shoot for meta defining design is a mistake.  Ideally Warframes should be picked due to playstyle preferences and/or side grade that way player choice is relevant and important.  To give an example of "side grades" since i've mentioned it a few times i'll give you a few pairings so you can hopefully understand my point better.

Nezha/rhino.  Excalibur/Baruuk.  Oberon/Harrow.

  • Applause 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

I can agree that a goal to strive for is to have a better baseline standard of frames.  I can't agree that we should be striving to make hero's meta capable.

I don't think of the word meta as a negative thing.  As I feel like i've mentioned before I do think it's 100% fine to have "best of the best" things.  I just don't think Meta based things should ever be the critera of change for other things.  Saryn and octavia are both meta frames at the moment and both are frames I personally would not pick as a goal to work towards for other frames.  In my mind we should be shooting for more heros Like Excalibur, Harrow, and Nezha.

I'm fully aware of people who play optimally.  I don't know how many times I have to restate this.  The mindset of playing optimally isn't the problem.  It's when you try to superimpose that frame of mind on the game to make changes.  There is nothing wrong with wanting better frames.  There is something wrong with calling something objectively bad because there is a better frame.

And your opinion is also completely subjective.  This is a discussion not rehashing facts for some kind of document.  Pointing this out doesn't do your argument any good and is an example of what I dislike about having a discourse from you.  "if someone thinks a frame is bad they won't play them and I think that's bad."  That's far too black and white to have any sort of healthy view about the game.  You're not wrong for having your opinion.  You get into the wrong when you try to change the game based on optimal play alone.  What do we do?  Uh.  We actually discuss the thing.  We don't immediately make changes.  As I said.  I think Warframe choice should be akin to side grade changes.  That way choice matters.  If we only go by what is best then player choice is lost and thus things become boring from a design standpoint because power creep comes into play.

I noted that I do not play in pinnacle content for reasons.  One because said pinnacle content isn't really relevant for most players.  And two because the game is primarily focused around farming things that are not pinnacle content.  So if hydroid is comparable to other cc frames in regards to farming then I don't feel the urgency.

I'll restate.  I think having a better baseline for what warframes should be like is something to shoot for.  I think trying to shoot for meta defining design is a mistake.  Ideally Warframes should be picked due to playstyle preferences and/or side grade that way player choice is relevant and important.  To give an example of "side grades" since i've mentioned it a few times i'll give you a few pairings so you can hopefully understand my point better.

Nezha/rhino.  Excalibur/Baruuk.  Oberon/Harrow.

1, I chose a meta frame, because the meta frames seem to produce the most enjoyment for the most amount of people.  And maybe you could point to mechanics, but I think people want to be especially powerful.  But ultimately if we agree all the character should be the same value, which characters we base it around seems arbitrary.  I truly don't care if it's around the meta class or the A tier or the B tier, because they'd all be the same assumably. If you're afraid of power creep I agree, we shouldn't make characters stronger than that baseline.

2, I never argued Nezha was objectively bad, just that under some people's framework, he's not good enough to play in their content.  What that means, is you end up with a bunch of players who don't play Nezha, because they think it's not fun to lose that much efficiency.  And you'd have to explain to me why it's wrong to balance with optimal play in mind.  Superimposing that frame of mind, I don't think would hurt the rest of the game's population, but your system is hurting the optimal players demographic.

3, You misunderstand, I'm saying because how we determine what's good or bad is subjective, even if you think your stance is right, you can't get the other side to enjoy playing the frame.  "if someone thinks a frame is bad they won't play them and I think that's bad."  Isn't black and white, it's a simplified way of saying this.  I want everyone to play Nezha regardless of level, but if the min-maxing audience determines he's always less viable than Rhino, so they never play him, that's bad.  If the audience were small, maybe that wouldn't be important to pander to, but I think warframe's min-max to have fun audience is huge.  So I think he should be exactly as viable as Rhino, and I think we agree on that?  I'm not arguing that he was objectively bad, I've never said that, just that he's worse.  We're arguing past eachother on that.  

Also idk what you mean by rehashing facts for a documentary, you'd have to explain I guess, but I don't remember ever talking about how people's frameworks for determining fun are different and can effect a character's playrate.

This wasn't just, it's my opinion so it can't be wrong, but that there are people who think he's bad so they don't play him.  

4, Why can't we balance for both, I want Hydroid to be as good as other frames in my content as well.  That's what my For Honor argument was about.  I think they should balance for Competitive Duels, even though the audience is smaller, but they should also balance for dominion.  Also I feel like saying "most" of the players seems generous, because these most wouldn't see a downside to a buff to his top level usability, and the top level crowd is huge in warframe, similar to other MMO's.

5, I totally agree, warframes should be picked as sidegrades.  Like the whole cast should be sidegrades in a perfect world.  Then we could pick solely on play style and theme preferences.  And I think developing in that direction would heed better results than we get now.

Final, I'd appreciate if you stopped attributing everything I say to malice.  Every time I don't understand your underlying reasons, or ask you to clarify yourself, or reframe your statements, you go straight to the nuclear button.  When you reduce my argument for the 5th time that I want to balance "Only" for x factor or y factor and am not thinking about z, I don't jump the gun and say how much I don't like talking to you, or threaten to not respond if you keep unfairly reducing my arguments.  I would appreciate if you'd argue with more faith, I'm very much not trying to deceive you, or misconstrue your points.

Also we should still get together and hash this out.

Also Also I don't know how to do multiple quotes lol

Edited by Balistica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Balistica said:

1, I chose a meta frame, because the meta frames seem to produce the most enjoyment for the most amount of people.  And maybe you could point to mechanics, but I think people want to be especially powerful.  But ultimately if we agree all the character should be the same value, which characters we base it around seems arbitrary.  I truly don't care if it's around the meta class or the A tier or the B tier, because they'd all be the same assumably. If you're afraid of power creep I agree, we shouldn't make characters stronger than that baseline.

It's true that most people prefer to have a powerful feeling.  Power fantasy games are a thing afterall, so your logic is founded.  But yes, I don't want power creep which is why I think trying to make frames "meta capable" as a goal is a bad one.

39 minutes ago, Balistica said:

2, I never argued Nezha was objectively bad, just that under some people's framework, he's not good enough to play in their content.  What that means, is you end up with a bunch of players who don't play Nezha, because they think it's not fun to lose that much efficiency.  And you'd have to explain to me why it's wrong to balance with optimal play in mind.  Superimposing that frame of mind, I don't think would hurt the rest of the game's population, but your system is hurting the optimal players demographic.

Power creep.  Dunno how to say it any other way.

39 minutes ago, Balistica said:

3, You misunderstand, I'm saying because how we determine what's good or bad is subjective, even if you think your stance is right, you can't get the other side to enjoy playing the frame.  "if someone thinks a frame is bad they won't play them and I think that's bad."  Isn't black and white, it's a simplified way of saying this.  I want everyone to play Nezha regardless of level, but if the min-maxing audience determines he's always less viable than Rhino, so they never play him, that's bad.  If the audience were small, maybe that wouldn't be important to pander to, but I think warframe's min-max to have fun audience is huge.  So I think he should be exactly as viable as Rhino, and I think we agree on that?  I'm not arguing that he was objectively bad, I've never said that, just that he's worse.  We're arguing past eachother on that.  

Also idk what you mean by rehashing facts for a documentary, you'd have to explain I guess, but I don't remember ever talking about how people's frameworks for determining fun are different and can effect a character's playrate.

This wasn't just, it's my opinion so it can't be wrong, but that there are people who think he's bad so they don't play him.  

Thanks for the clarification, originally it came off a different way hence my hostility.  Even if you were attempting to simplify your statement I would have appreciated a lengthier one in this instance.  Especially when we're using pretty open ended words like "bad."

39 minutes ago, Balistica said:

4, Why can't we balance for both, I want Hydroid to be as good as other frames in my content as well.  That's what my For Honor argument was about.  I think they should balance for Competitive Duels, even though the audience is smaller, but they should also balance for dominion.  Also I feel like saying "most" of the players seems generous, because these most wouldn't see a downside to a buff to his top level usability, and the top level crowd is huge in warframe, similar to other MMO's.

As Warframe's current base design is I don't think it's possible to make frames like hydroid to be good enough that you'd want to take him into say eidilon hunts without drastically effecting how he performs else where.  Theoretically speaking if there could be some middle ground to increase the viability of a frame in pinnacle content without making them a must pick for farming content then sure, by all means go for it.  I just don't think that's possible given current mission structure, enemy design, and frame designs...at least not for all frames.

39 minutes ago, Balistica said:

5, I totally agree, warframes should be picked as sidegrades.  Like the whole cast should be sidegrades in a perfect world.  Then we could pick solely on play style and theme preferences.  And I think developing in that direction would heed better results than we get now.

Final, I'd appreciate if you stopped attributing everything I say to malice.  Every time I don't understand your underlying reasons, or ask you to clarify yourself, or reframe your statements, you go straight to the nuclear button.  When you reduce my argument for the 5th time that I want to balance "Only" for x factor or y factor and am not thinking about z, I don't jump the gun and say how much I don't like talking to you, or threaten to not respond if you keep unfairly reducing my arguments.  I would appreciate if you'd argue with more faith, I'm very much not trying to deceive you, or misconstrue your points.

Also we should still get together and hash this out.

Also Also I don't know how to do multiple quotes lol

I'm not assuming malice here, just the way you word some of your responses or chosen verbiage can come with negative attachments.  I tried pointing them out to help you potentially see this so we can avoid further issues.  I don't know what you mean by "get together."  I don't play on pc.  And I haven't touched WF on my console in months because i've effectively quit the game.  So you'd have to be a bit more clear on that request.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

It's true that most people prefer to have a powerful feeling.  Power fantasy games are a thing afterall, so your logic is founded.  But yes, I don't want power creep which is why I think trying to make frames "meta capable" as a goal is a bad one.

Power creep.  Dunno how to say it any other way.

Thanks for the clarification, originally it came off a different way hence my hostility.  Even if you were attempting to simplify your statement I would have appreciated a lengthier one in this instance.  Especially when we're using pretty open ended words like "bad."

As Warframe's current base design is I don't think it's possible to make frames like hydroid to be good enough that you'd want to take him into say eidilon hunts without drastically effecting how he performs else where.  Theoretically speaking if there could be some middle ground to increase the viability of a frame in pinnacle content without making them a must pick for farming content then sure, by all means go for it.  I just don't think that's possible given current mission structure, enemy design, and frame designs...at least not for all frames.

I'm not assuming malice here, just the way you word some of your responses or chosen verbiage can come with negative attachments.  I tried pointing them out to help you potentially see this so we can avoid further issues.  I don't know what you mean by "get together."  I don't play on pc.  And I haven't touched WF on my console in months because i've effectively quit the game.  So you'd have to be a bit more clear on that request.

I don't think power creep would be an issue if we brought others up, I think that issue would arise if we introduce a Saryn among Saryns right.  There is little difference between saying we should make all characters meta, and we should make all characters the same viability.  Anyway you very much pigeonholed me into finely categorizing it, but I don't think there's a big difference between averaging the roster toward meta picks, and averaging the roster toward A tier.  The difference is negligible, all I care about is them being balanced.

I don't even know if power creep and balancing towards meta inherently involves power creep.  It could happen, but also all the characters could be brought up and the content scaling wouldn't have to change unless some characters wildly overshoot.  idk it isn't causation, but it could happen.

So I still stand by the word bad there, but we disagree fundamentally on the word.  It's not necessarily open ended, but to someone who needs to be very effective to have fun, if it were only between Rhino and Nezha, then Nezha would've been infinitely worse than Rhino.  They would have no reason to pick that frame so I think it's reasonable that they call him bad.  I just think "worse" and "bad" are used interchangeably.

So I don't think you can balance for making characters viable for Eidolon Hunts, because that requires things other than total usability, it requires niche abilities.  

I wanted to get together on discord and talk about this and maybe record it, because I think it was a good argument.  Unfortunately, it seems we pretty much agree on everything except how the word "bad" is used, so there's not really a reason now.

Alright this conversation really put me on my nose.  I think I might nose off for a little bit, nose out.

Edited by Balistica

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Balistica said:

I don't think power creep would be an issue if we brought others up, I think that issue would arise if we introduce a Saryn among Saryns right.  There is little difference between saying we should make all characters meta, and we should make all characters the same viability.  Anyway you very much pigeonholed me into finely categorizing it, but I don't think there's a big difference between averaging the roster toward meta picks, and averaging the roster toward A tier.  The difference is negligible, all I care about is them being balanced.

We will just have to agree to disagree here then.

15 hours ago, Balistica said:

I don't even know if power creep and balancing towards meta inherently involves power creep.  It could happen, but also all the characters could be brought up and the content scaling wouldn't have to change unless some characters wildly overshoot.  idk it isn't causation, but it could happen.

^

15 hours ago, Balistica said:

So I still stand by the word bad there, but we disagree fundamentally on the word.  It's not necessarily open ended, but to someone who needs to be very effective to have fun, if it were only between Rhino and Nezha, then Nezha would've been infinitely worse than Rhino.  They would have no reason to pick that frame so I think it's reasonable that they call him bad.  I just think "worse" and "bad" are used interchangeably.

Word is okay.  Just meant that because it's a pretty generic word it can lead to different understandings of the situation.  Nezha isn't infinitely worse compared to rhino.  Rhino gets total damage/proc immunity with IS.  But IS itself isn't an end all be all because it falls off rather quickly making his augments practically mandatory in end game content.  Where as Nezha's warding halo doesn't grant damage immunity nor status immunity.  But because he can be damaged he can take advantage of things like adaptation or arcanes.  Not the only comparison that can be made between the two but it should be good enough to explain why one isn't strictly worse compared to the other.

15 hours ago, Balistica said:

So I don't think you can balance for making characters viable for Eidolon Hunts, because that requires things other than total usability, it requires niche abilities.  

Hunts were one specific example.  I was referring to the boss fights DE has been adding because there isn't really any other pinnacle content I can think of that would be really hard to do with most of the frames in game.  Like, arbitrations are about the only one I can think of.  And even then things are not as strict on what you can play with as something like hunts.  I would ask of you if you can give me an example of end game/pinnacle content that you believe Hydroid struggles to be decent at so I can hopefully have a better picture on where you're coming from.

15 hours ago, Balistica said:

I wanted to get together on discord and talk about this and maybe record it, because I think it was a good argument.  Unfortunately, it seems we pretty much agree on everything except how the word "bad" is used, so there's not really a reason now.

As neat as that would be i'm a lot worse when it comes to debating verbally.  I don't ever give myself enough time to properly think through everything and I don't know how to condense my points.  My friends who do discuss with me end up going in a loop a few times till I feel like what i'm saying has been properly communicated.  But yes, for the most part we have agreed this entire time.  

15 hours ago, Balistica said:

Alright this conversation really put me on my nose.  I think I might nose off for a little bit, nose out.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

We will just have to agree to disagree here then.

^

Word is okay.  Just meant that because it's a pretty generic word it can lead to different understandings of the situation.  Nezha isn't infinitely worse compared to rhino.  Rhino gets total damage/proc immunity with IS.  But IS itself isn't an end all be all because it falls off rather quickly making his augments practically mandatory in end game content.  Where as Nezha's warding halo doesn't grant damage immunity nor status immunity.  But because he can be damaged he can take advantage of things like adaptation or arcanes.  Not the only comparison that can be made between the two but it should be good enough to explain why one isn't strictly worse compared to the other.

Hunts were one specific example.  I was referring to the boss fights DE has been adding because there isn't really any other pinnacle content I can think of that would be really hard to do with most of the frames in game.  Like, arbitrations are about the only one I can think of.  And even then things are not as strict on what you can play with as something like hunts.  I would ask of you if you can give me an example of end game/pinnacle content that you believe Hydroid struggles to be decent at so I can hopefully have a better picture on where you're coming from.

As neat as that would be i'm a lot worse when it comes to debating verbally.  I don't ever give myself enough time to properly think through everything and I don't know how to condense my points.  My friends who do discuss with me end up going in a loop a few times till I feel like what i'm saying has been properly communicated.  But yes, for the most part we have agreed this entire time.  

Peace.

The word is Bad not okay, because for these people, they won't play it, or they consider it unplayable without sacrificing too much.  So to them, they wouldn't say Okay, they would say Bad.  So for example, in league of legends, the entire roster is usable technically.  But when a Challenger says, "yeah but Kalista is unplayable in challenger" , I wouldn't say, well no, she's usable.  He's right, when it matters, having a 2-3% winrate difference means everything for him, he won't be able to play that character.  So for him it's "can" or "can't" play, not "sometimes" play, there's only good and bad.

If I had to do an objective themed mode and I picked a character that had no synergy with that mode, the word bad fits there.  It doesn't mean it's bad across the entire game, it's just bad for that mode. 

So, they could always potentially make more high end content.  But for example, if a mission scales, as the game goes on, he will disproportionately lose effectiveness as the game goes on, when compared to other frames..  So the higher level the mission, the worse he gets.  Also map plays into it, if the map is an enclosed room with 2 entrances, he might get more out of that, but on plains he's at a severe disadvantage.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...