Should DE follow bungie's footsteps on balancing for endgame?

[DiabolusUrsus]

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Problem is the lack of endgame and/or proper challenge. Not the power of players which is relative to the content at hand.

It is ironic that you mention denial and yet keep ignoring this  simple fact.

That's not ironic at all; the whole point I am making is that DE CANNOT implement "proper challenge" without nerfing players. It simply can't be done with how OP we currently are.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

You are making things up at this point, I never said it is incompatible with balance.

You attempted to use the "horde shooter" excuse to justify why balance wasn't as important. Killing lots of fodder doesn't mean players need to have things like 500k damage crits.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

I simply said this is the natural progression of a horde shooter. It is more about quantity than quality.

How is this relevant to nerfs, though?

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Past lvl 120-150. 

Which is outside the scope of balanced content, and should not be considered for balancing. That's endless scaling territory.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

No idea what your point is.

You were saying that "you don't know" if it would be a good idea to rebalance the game. Claiming that it could go one way or the other is just avoiding giving an argument as to why it would be a bad idea. You're attempting to throw out the idea based on uncertainty, which is an argument from ignorance.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

But anyways, unless they stop linear progression(stop introducing stronger frames, mods, weapons all together), even after a heavy nerf, in time we will eventually progress to a point where the enemies will feel like card boards again. So it again comes down to the same thing. We need a proper end game ; challenging missions/enemies and proper rewards to give players the incentive to play.

Like I said, all cheese strats, abilities, exploits should be nerfed I agree. Nerfing DPS as a whole is pointless though, for the reason I mentioned above.

That's why I and others have said that it is important to clearly define a "max level." That's how DE would be able to balance new content to prevent infinite vertical progression.

Any end-game progression should be horizontal, not vertical.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

More elequent combat mechanics can be introduced to make dealing damage more challenging though. Like, a requirement to hit weak points of enemies to be able to deal proper damage,

Easily cheesed with CC.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

or talent tree like weapon specializations for players to invest so that they are forced to pick a certain play style.

That's just power creep; how does giving players more upgrades equate to a more challenging end-game?

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

But then, these are all "balances" that require DE to make a overhaul to the entire game.

So by your reasoning they are no good. Why are we playing by different rules when it comes to pitching ideas?

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Nothing you've said so far is useful to anyone either. You are just saying things for the sake of refuting the point I didn't even make.

Uh, no, I have made concrete points in support of why nerfs are needed.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

I'm just saying that shaving a digit off our dps alone isn't going to solve anything.

Except we have been suggesting multiple changes, not just DPS reductions. They all contribute to the greater singular goal of developing "proper" end-game content.

A proper end-game needs complex, challenging enemies.

Complex, challenging enemies need to be allowed to actually fight the player to make a difference.

Therefore, ability spam needs to go and player DPS needs to be toned down so that it doesn't instantly splatter bosses against the nearest wall.

This isn't rocket science.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Enemies have no AI in the first place. They just stand there and shoot with their clunky movements. 

Nerfing CC would mean something if they did. 

Well duh, that's exactly the point I have been making.

The reason disabling even rudimentary AI is a bad thing is that it prevents enemies from using any of the abilities they have at their disposal. Therefore, it is pointless to attempt adding more "challenging" enemies or "better AI" needed for end-game without also nerfing CC spam.

It doesn't matter if an enemy can potentially out-smart the player if it spends the entirety of its existence suspended helpless in the air or permanently blinded.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Added difficulty levels can easily compensate for this. It is pointless to nerf DPS unless something gamebreaking just sticks out ahead of everything else.

That's the point; player DPS as a whole is currently game-breaking. Why do you think all the new bosses/minibosses have to be given special damage reductions or DPS caps on top of any armor they have? Because player DPS scales way too high.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

No it is not. Like I said, unless they completely halt progression, we'll eventually get stronger weapons and mods that'll make the existing content cakewalk again.

Vertical progression is not the only type of progression.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Difficulty levels.

Pretty meaningless when players can already beat Lv. 9999 enemies given enough patience.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

More focus on Disruption type of missions with added challenges.

Stronger enemies with abilities and speed that can match ours accompanied with better AI.

Pointless when players can cancel those advantages with CC.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Talent trees for Warframes/Operators so there is build variety again(would you go for AOE damage, or CC or just single target DPS). 

Again, just power creep.

If it's not power creep, why would players limit themselves when their existing builds are already strong enough to cheese all content?

If players are forced to use those talent trees, then that's the same thing as nerfing them.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

If there specializations, then every player and every frame has to focus on something rather than do it all. 

I agree with the general intent of this, but call it what it is: lots of nerfs.

8 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

There are tons and tons of stuff that DE can implement into the game to make it better and end game ready, and Nerfing DPS is the last on that list. 

Yet your own suggestion selectively nerfs DPS in order to achieve different specializations. How do you not recognize that?

[Tinklzs]

2 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

The existing mod system is garbage. There is no build variety and augment mods, with a few exceptions, sadly don't provide us with any additional play style. Most set mods are useless and terrible.

Most frames at a certain power/duration/range become "do it all frames". So either they should change the mod system(maybe have seperate modding for stats and abilities), or they add additonal talent tree like system(similar to what we have with focus) and create build variety for frames as well as define roles for players in a group.

Again, I don't mind nerfs. What we call "OP" or "Power inflated" is based off the norm. So if a frame or a weapon is outdoing it's peers/competition, they should be brought in line for sure.

Nerfing everything to make the mediocre content feel more challenging though ? Nah. DE should have thought about it while they were designing it.

They can't just go "well let's take back all the progression we've made during these years, because our current content is poorly designed and isn't geared towards Veterans and we are out of ideas on how to make it challenging." 

Someone used this on me, now I shall on you. 

 

This kind of helps explain the reasoning behind DE's decisions (or lack thereof) with Warframe, in some cases it fits and makes sense, but down the road it causes many problems. We are at that point, where we can still climb out of the rabbit hole, without changing what Warframe is at it's core, but improving it going forward.

 

The current mod system isn't very good, it's a cookie cutter system that ultimately shoe horns you into one of 2-3 builds (with little variations among them) and that's it.  The potential for it to be much more, on the scale of, say, Path of Exile's skill tree system, is there. However, I don't thing a system like Path of Exile or even WoW and it's talent tree system really fit with Warframe.     Sure, you can make it super complicated, have each operator school tree effect each warframe differently + even more differently with augment mods AND wombo-combos with each frame! But then, you just get lots of diversity but with no depth... like what we have now.

I think looking at the mods is a key aspect, look and decide "what was the original idea behind this, and does it perform on it?" Then, "If it does, how can we make it better, and if it doesn't how can we fix it?"   I think it somewhat works, but it's skewed toward a one-size fits all system, and while there are some frames that are mind bending at first (like slowva duration or speedva range fitting the same goals in different ways on her #4), I feel as though it could be better.

A skill tree system is a neat idea, but looking at how operators were handled initially, I think it's best not to go that route. Plus, I think skill trees fit operators better overall than they do warframes, not only for lore but simplistic reasons, sometimes less is more.  Instead of adding many different systems, lets shave off the fat of what we have, and look at the meat. 

 

Must have mods should be removed, this mainly fits for weapons, serration, barrel diffusion etc. Remove these mods (refund the resoruces used to level them), and build their stats into the weapon.  This would need to be done when the rest of the game balance is getting reworked too, so that we have a nice shift across the board, otherwise balance would be even worse going one way or the other (players being even more powerful or severely underpowered). 

 

Without going into an essay or small novels worth of detail here (I swear I made a document somewhere), I think the following will give you an idea what I think warframe should be.

Ever see Star Wars, specifically, The animated series or the clone wars (2002-2003)?

Jedi (warframes) kill hundreds or thousands of droids, eventually an enemy comes along (bane, dooku, ventress etc) that is a mini-boss that you fight, sometimes having a bigger impact than a mini-boss would have, but you get my point. 

All the special units should be treated like mini-bosses and have their spawns and frequency adjusted as such. NOX walks in the room, 2+ players help to deal with him, he can be solo'd but it will be harder than before. Because rebalance has happened, we don't need invincibility/immune mechanics like we did in the past, giving more creative freedom for enemies to have more abilities, movement and counters to players.   In turn, we players now can have the ability for wombo-combos (think zephyr's tornadoes + embers world on fire as an example), because of all the frames we have, we can easily make some interesting combos to use in battle that not only look cool (fire tornadoes!) but actually have an impact (Hydroid #1 + Frost #2 or #4 for massive hail bombs).    

 

[844448]

2 hours ago, Tinklzs said:

I'll bite, what do you  consider to be endgame?

I consider eidolon and arbitration as endgame since they're accessible when you've progressed through the game, not something that you access in 10 hours and called as endgame

 

2 hours ago, Tinklzs said:

I never said anything like that, nor anyone else I've seen advocating for re-balance so endgame can happen. Not sure why having the ability to create and have an endgame is 'stroking one's e-peen". I just want something that is more than what we have, while being fun and rewarding to play.

We have numerous difficult things that is considered as endgame but people don't want to acknowledge it and keep using any meta loadout and in an irony saying there's no challenge when using easy mode loadout. If they can solo arbitration or ESO with Excalibur or non nuking/meta warframe and any non-meta weapon, then I'll acknowledge their complaint about having no endgame

I'll bite back, what do you consider as fun and rewarding?

[Tinklzs]

12 minutes ago, 844448 said:

I consider eidolon and arbitration as endgame since they're accessible when you've progressed through the game, not something that you access in 10 hours and called as endgame

 

We have numerous difficult things that is considered as endgame but people don't want to acknowledge it and keep using any meta loadout and in an irony saying there's no challenge when using easy mode loadout. If they can solo arbitration or ESO with Excalibur or non nuking/meta warframe and any non-meta weapon, then I'll acknowledge their complaint about having no endgame

I'll bite back, what do you consider as fun and rewarding?

That is a complicated question for me. Considering I got Insane in the Membrane, twice back in Wrath of the Lich King - and am a completionist.  Sometimes I can find fun in doing things no one else likes, however, I do overall agree that many rewards in Warframe either don't scale properly or aren't proper at all and need updated.

Many don't consider Eidolons to be an endgame or even arbitrations, I would argue they are a mid-end game. Going off of World of Warcraft design, they aren't raids, but Heroic-Dungeon level. They give good rewards (when RNG is on your side), but aren't easily accessible and have a noticeable increase in difficulty (however arbitrary and cheap that difficulty might be). However, I think we can go even further, which is why I don't really consider them to be an endgame.    I do however, agree with your reasoning and can agree with how you obtained your conclusion "Since they're accessible when you've progressed through the game."

Well, if Warframe can't handle us at our best, how can we handle it at it's worst?  I see the argument of not using meta stuff to make the game more challenging, but that in itself acknowledges that we're too powerful - yet those that use this line of thinking (don't use meta stuff) end up saying either warframe is a horde shooter or that balance isn't needed because it's PvE.       If I want to challenge myself and play a game a specific way, I'll play Dark Souls or Fallout New Vegas (bunch of mods, edition).  For warframe, what if I end up enjoying a weapon and it happens to be meta, because nothing has that feeling that, that specific weapon does? I.E. Tiberon prime with it's fire modes or catchmoon because the sound of killing a hallway without needing the plasmor  sounds nice? 

I'd argue that DE still needs to rebalance the game, and me lying to myself and not using frames/weapons I enjoy isn't the way to do that.

Endgame also is a system that usually tests the player in some form or another, Arbitration, ESO, and Eidolons don't really do this. Because of the current balance, the cookie cutter meta determines what is effective and little effort vs what is less effective but more effort  for the same loot .  If I'm getting 2000 endo per rotation playing a meta frame and 2000 endo playing a not as fun non meta frame (or just a frame I don't like in particular), then.. what's the point, especially since it's a game and I"m supposed to be having fun. And sometimes, those that want to play their favorite frames or use their favorite weapons cannot do so, because they don't compete or even compare to the meta because they're so far apart.

 

DE I feel isn't taking a hard look at all the data showing why players play certain frames, and what they get out of it. The current meta is speed.  How fast can you get from point A to B, killing, sabotaging, or infiltrating something. The path of least resistance (however it is obtained) is the key, and each type of mission has it's equivalent of God-Tier.   What is my incentive for picking Nyx to do an exterminate taking far longer (even though her deluxe skin is beautiful),  when saryn or mesa is strictly better? Meaning I can spend that time I would, technically, be wasting on Nyx doing something else.   

Balance wise for the scenario above, you nerf saryn/mesa accordingly, and buff nyx accordingly. However, it's kind of hard to do that because nyx isn't necessarily a kill frame - she's a CC frame. Which means, making CC more relevant is the case, however,  Nova (The God of CC) makes all difficulties trivial with that 75% slow.  So that isn't the sole fix either. 

Warframe is a jarbled mess of updates and 'It's not a phase, Mom!" updates and changes over the years. The problem is, in order to fix what warframe is now, DE needs to sift through all that and determine what power level they want to be the 'norm', what will be the power level of enemies, and then stretch that a little and make that stretch - endgame.  Endgame, in most games, has been taking what you know, taking your abilities and tools at hand and stretching it to the limit, testing your proficiency and knowledge.  In some games you get used to it fairly quickly, like WoW, so they added even more difficulties to further challenge you (and players adapted and eventually that became a non-issue until that next expansion when that knowledge resets).

So.. yeah, hope I kind of answered your question.  

[PatternistSlave]

3 hours ago, Tinklzs said:

Odd, the arbitrations I do we stay for an average of an hour.

On public?  You're hella luckier than I am than.  Out of the last 10 or so I've done I've had maybe 2 where anyone stayed past 30 min.  Not one where I didn't revive someone pre 10 min.

[Tinklzs]

1 hour ago, PatternistSlave said:

On public?  You're hella luckier than I am than.  Out of the last 10 or so I've done I've had maybe 2 where anyone stayed past 30 min.  Not one where I didn't revive someone pre 10 min.

Yeah on public. Only had a handful where we didn't stay an hour. I'd say 70ish % just hopping in, and the other 30% where it was preplanned (just using recruit chat) we ended up staying longer.

[PatternistSlave]

7 minutes ago, Tinklzs said:

Yeah on public. Only had a handful where we didn't stay an hour. I'd say 70ish % just hopping in, and the other 30% where it was preplanned (just using recruit chat) we ended up staying longer.

Well you're hella luckier than me, although I have to think your perception is colored by using recruiting.  I can only go on what I see at any rate and that's mostly undergeared players with little interest in harder content.  DE would know better though.  Point was I don't fault them for not focusing on the fanciful "endgame" everyone envisions differently.

[Tinklzs]

34 minutes ago, PatternistSlave said:

Well you're hella luckier than me, although I have to think your perception is colored by using recruiting.  I can only go on what I see at any rate and that's mostly undergeared players with little interest in harder content.  DE would know better though.  Point was I don't fault them for not focusing on the fanciful "endgame" everyone envisions differently.

30% were preplanned (recruit channel) most (the 70%) were just "eh that's a frame or weapon I use, sure I'll go for it".   I'd play more arbitrations if the ayatans had stars in them. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, moostar95 said:

 I used to play this game because it made me happy. Now, I fear I might need pills because my blood boils with every new feature and nerf they add. They stopped caring about player's request years ago.

Nah, hit the bottle. One Glass of whisky/any other hard liquor (not wine and certainly not beer) certainly helps you power through the game. Pills are for scrubs.

It worked for Plague Star 1 and Defection's Debut.

[844448]

8 hours ago, Tinklzs said:

 

So, basically setting a limit? We had that, level 9999 so let's set it as the bar and balance things from there because I doubt people won't scream for "higher/harder enemies" if we limit things like other games since that's what I see as the beauty of warframe, limitless scaling as the potential and of course a reward for my effort if I can wipe these level 9999 enemies without a scratch. One thing that I dislike after playing warframe is max level on enemies because you will be only fighting enemies at that level once you reach max level while you can fight enemies at absurdly high level up to level 9999 (let's make the level scale more eh?)

[Cubewano]

33 minutes ago, 844448 said:

So, basically setting a limit? We had that, level 9999 so let's set it as the bar and balance things from there because I doubt people won't scream for "higher/harder enemies" if we limit things like other games since that's what I see as the beauty of warframe, limitless scaling as the potential and of course a reward for my effort if I can wipe these level 9999 enemies without a scratch. One thing that I dislike after playing warframe is max level on enemies because you will be only fighting enemies at that level once you reach max level while you can fight enemies at absurdly high level up to level 9999 (let's make the level scale more eh?)

As it is we scale near infinitely so broadening the scaling cap wouldn't do anything to fix our issues, it also speaks to how flawed our balance is that you think beating level 9999 enemies is still too easy a task to handle when its so absurdly out of the range of play anyone is even remotely expected to push into. These feats are similarly robbed of value since the primary effort involved is merely patience, since again we essentially can scale to meet all levels with not very dissimilar levels of personal skill, levels have become arbitrary visuals in Warframe more or less over time. DE needs to decide a set level range we are meant to preform at first, balance around that range, and then treat anything outside said range as excessive / limitation pushing territory not meant to be balanced around / casually accessible if we're ever to hope for genuine difficulty.

[Cubewano]

15 hours ago, Tinklzs said:

DE I feel isn't taking a hard look at all the data showing why players play certain frames, and what they get out of it. The current meta is speed.  How fast can you get from point A to B, killing, sabotaging, or infiltrating something. The path of least resistance (however it is obtained) is the key, and each type of mission has it's equivalent of God-Tier.   What is my incentive for picking Nyx to do an exterminate taking far longer (even though her deluxe skin is beautiful),  when saryn or mesa is strictly better? Meaning I can spend that time I would, technically, be wasting on Nyx doing something else.   

According to Steve they do know the numbers, they've just been constantly neglecting to address them out of fear of public reactions to the kind of nerfs they would necessitate. (this is in reference to like several devstreams ago mogamu's de interview series where steve acknowledged the balance issues in the game and how de had been avoiding addressing them for ages due to discomfort on how they would be received, but also noted that he knows they would be justified and had strong data to back them up if people would actually care to look and listen to said data - which i imagine the fear is that many will not)

Edited June 22, 2019 by Cubewano
made a correction

[SilverRook]

On 2019-05-18 at 6:16 AM, 844448 said:

How about this : No RNG on reward, it's a 100% drop with no other drops like mods or endo

Can you define that "actual endgame content" when saryn or chroma are nuking things like nothing for example? Buffing the other makes the balancing impossible according to bungie so the other way is nerfing those OP things to be in line with the others

no because the strange habit this community has is finding ways around things and to beat the system.

ppl will still find a way to nuke them - all you will do is shrink the rewards table ...... 

[(PSN)ImTheOx]

On 2019-05-18 at 7:09 AM, 844448 said:

With recent news about bungie nerfing many things that considered OP for endgame, bringing them to be in line with other gears and how many people complain that there's no endgame or challenging content, I want to ask you guys if you agree to nerfing things in warframe as balancing to make the endgame challenging?

Some things to consider, if you guys agree to nerf OP things in warframe, these are some examples of things that will be gone for good

- No more one-shotting eidolon or other bosses with chroma

- No more AoE map nuking in ESO or other modes with saryn or other map nuking frames

So, to reach optimum damage output, you will need support frames to buff the team or debuff enemies

What do you think? Should we suggest DE to follow bungie in this?

yes i agree

[Tinklzs]

5 hours ago, Cubewano said:

According to Steve they do know the numbers, they've just been constantly neglecting to address them out of fear of public reactions to the kind of nerfs they would necessitate. (this is in reference to like several devstreams ago where steve acknowledged the balance issues in the game and how de had been avoiding addressing them for ages due to discomfort on how they would be received, but also noted that he knows they would be justified and had strong data to back them up if people would actually care to look and listen to said data - which i imagine the fear is that many will not)

Which is nice that they finally acknowledged it (was mogamu interview, seen those videos too), however, I think it's understandable for them to be fearful of backlash or outright quitting because of how immature people can be - especially entitled players.  Personally, I'd do it one big chunk at a time. First nerf enemy scaling and plateau it, do the same with players - numerically it's fairly simple. Afterwards, organize each warframe based on their abilities into a 'class'  (Tank, DPS, Support, Healer etc), some warframes would classify as multiple. Then mess with integers for arcanes, mods, weapons as needed. Once all that is done (the foundation set), start re-designing AI for the mini-boss type enemies for new challenge and to help change the flow of combat.

Last night I rewatched the Matrix, the final big fight in the entryway, Slow-mo where Neo is fighting with Trinity, would be considered the norm for Warframe, the mini-boss (or in Matrix's case, the big one) was Neo vs Agent Smith, that's what a Special Unit would be, Agent Smith. 

I'd say the two hardest things to rebalance would be the two biggest money makers for DE (via spending money on plat). 

#1 Rivens : They're broken in many ways and don't serve the purpose they were created for, redesigning them to be truly custom weapon augments would be the best bet, how they do that (what rolls you can get, how high etc) determines the uproar afterwards.

#2 Arcanes - Talks about energy working like mana regen in other games has been all over the forums recently. If Energize and Pulse worked like Grace for example; I'm not too sure how that would be received.  Players don't like change much, especially those that like how things are right now.  So I'm not sure if energy and how it's managed could be touched right away (or ever) but it should be considered to be looked at, at least.

 

By reeling in the big OP frames (or re-purposing them to be a pseudo-attack support) with a plateau system, would help bring very underpowered or underused frames back up into the useful range, while making balance in the future MUCH easier and more importantly CONSISTENT . 

[Tinklzs]

5 hours ago, SilverRook said:

no because the strange habit this community has is finding ways around things and to beat the system.

ppl will still find a way to nuke them - all you will do is shrink the rewards table ...... 

The way to fix what he has a problem with - isn't to make drops 100% (which would be a horrible idea, this is a loot shooter) - but to get rid of common mod drops and bump up the lower endo and credit caches to something higher - but obviously not index levels. Then to make many of these endurance or fast/repeat missions fun, many of which is by FIXING problems we already have!

#1 The icon glitching out or not showing up in some tile set rooms.

#2 Exterminate - or Capture turned Exterminate, enemies I passed should be running at me trying to catch me, not standing about at their post 500m away after I captured the target. On some tilesets you have to go back 200-400m and then go 'the right way' to get new spawns, however the game doesn't tell you this, which is super frustrating to players new and old.  So fixing that and making it more streamline would be a good start.

(Can't think of anymore at the moment, but you get my point).

 

 

6 hours ago, 844448 said:

So, basically setting a limit? We had that, level 9999 so let's set it as the bar and balance things from there because I doubt people won't scream for "higher/harder enemies" if we limit things like other games since that's what I see as the beauty of warframe, limitless scaling as the potential and of course a reward for my effort if I can wipe these level 9999 enemies without a scratch. One thing that I dislike after playing warframe is max level on enemies because you will be only fighting enemies at that level once you reach max level while you can fight enemies at absurdly high level up to level 9999 (let's make the level scale more eh?)

Even though Cubewano's response is correct I'll add some more.

What if sortie was the highest 'balanced' level you were supposed to fight? So your rubico barely one shots (or maybe even *gasp* TWO shots it).  In endurance missions, past level 100 would be where enemies get tougher, more health / damage (and with the new AI that would be fine, because the AI would be smarter unlike now where it's cheap because the AI is dumb).  

And because we scale past level 9999 (only on a handful of frames) - the level doesn't mean much.  

So to put it simply,

Level 100 in Warframe would be Normal raids in WoW. 

Level 150 in Warframe would be Heroic raids in WoW.

Level 200 in Warframe would be Mystic raids in WoW. 

You wouldn't get super amounts of resources for playing these endurance runs (because then it would over reward those players). However, giving cosmetics for accomplishing these feats would be fine, or orbiter trophies (like Index: John Prodman), because they don't give an edge and it gives newer players who level up in time something to go for. Kind of like nobody cares about collecting Kuria's at first, then they get high enough and collect them (and regret how many times they passed them in missions).

 

[SilverRook]

How about we let de carve their own path with their own game..... ya know...lol

[White_Matter]

17 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

That's not ironic at all; the whole point I am making is that DE CANNOT implement "proper challenge" without nerfing players. It simply can't be done with how OP we currently are.

You attempted to use the "horde shooter" excuse to justify why balance wasn't as important. Killing lots of fodder doesn't mean players need to have things like 500k damage crits.

How is this relevant to nerfs, though?

Which is outside the scope of balanced content, and should not be considered for balancing. That's endless scaling territory.

You were saying that "you don't know" if it would be a good idea to rebalance the game. Claiming that it could go one way or the other is just avoiding giving an argument as to why it would be a bad idea. You're attempting to throw out the idea based on uncertainty, which is an argument from ignorance.

That's why I and others have said that it is important to clearly define a "max level." That's how DE would be able to balance new content to prevent infinite vertical progression.

Any end-game progression should be horizontal, not vertical.

Easily cheesed with CC.

That's just power creep; how does giving players more upgrades equate to a more challenging end-game?

So by your reasoning they are no good. Why are we playing by different rules when it comes to pitching ideas?

Uh, no, I have made concrete points in support of why nerfs are needed.

Except we have been suggesting multiple changes, not just DPS reductions. They all contribute to the greater singular goal of developing "proper" end-game content.

A proper end-game needs complex, challenging enemies.

Complex, challenging enemies need to be allowed to actually fight the player to make a difference.

Therefore, ability spam needs to go and player DPS needs to be toned down so that it doesn't instantly splatter bosses against the nearest wall.

This isn't rocket science.

Well duh, that's exactly the point I have been making.

The reason disabling even rudimentary AI is a bad thing is that it prevents enemies from using any of the abilities they have at their disposal. Therefore, it is pointless to attempt adding more "challenging" enemies or "better AI" needed for end-game without also nerfing CC spam.

It doesn't matter if an enemy can potentially out-smart the player if it spends the entirety of its existence suspended helpless in the air or permanently blinded.

That's the point; player DPS as a whole is currently game-breaking. Why do you think all the new bosses/minibosses have to be given special damage reductions or DPS caps on top of any armor they have? Because player DPS scales way too high.

Vertical progression is not the only type of progression.

Pretty meaningless when players can already beat Lv. 9999 enemies given enough patience.

Pointless when players can cancel those advantages with CC.

Again, just power creep.

If it's not power creep, why would players limit themselves when their existing builds are already strong enough to cheese all content?

If players are forced to use those talent trees, then that's the same thing as nerfing them.

I agree with the general intent of this, but call it what it is: lots of nerfs.

Yet your own suggestion selectively nerfs DPS in order to achieve different specializations. How do you not recognize that?

My whole point is that nerfing DPS as a whole can't be a solution on its own(which is what I initially said as a response to the OP). At best it can be a small part of a long term solution which includes new additions to the game(mainly content - story, new missions, enemies, etc and new mechanics that make weapon/frame builds mean something), as well as balances(not just nerf mind you) and redesigned enemy behavior and AI. 

I think it is becoming meaningless to go back and forth on this.

With that said, I think everyone is at least in the same page here about the fact that the game needs a major overhaul to its core design.

 

17 hours ago, Tinklzs said:

Someone used this on me, now I shall on you. 

 

This kind of helps explain the reasoning behind DE's decisions (or lack thereof) with Warframe, in some cases it fits and makes sense, but down the road it causes many problems. We are at that point, where we can still climb out of the rabbit hole, without changing what Warframe is at it's core, but improving it going forward.

 

The current mod system isn't very good, it's a cookie cutter system that ultimately shoe horns you into one of 2-3 builds (with little variations among them) and that's it.  The potential for it to be much more, on the scale of, say, Path of Exile's skill tree system, is there. However, I don't thing a system like Path of Exile or even WoW and it's talent tree system really fit with Warframe.     Sure, you can make it super complicated, have each operator school tree effect each warframe differently + even more differently with augment mods AND wombo-combos with each frame! But then, you just get lots of diversity but with no depth... like what we have now.

I think looking at the mods is a key aspect, look and decide "what was the original idea behind this, and does it perform on it?" Then, "If it does, how can we make it better, and if it doesn't how can we fix it?"   I think it somewhat works, but it's skewed toward a one-size fits all system, and while there are some frames that are mind bending at first (like slowva duration or speedva range fitting the same goals in different ways on her #4), I feel as though it could be better.

A skill tree system is a neat idea, but looking at how operators were handled initially, I think it's best not to go that route. Plus, I think skill trees fit operators better overall than they do warframes, not only for lore but simplistic reasons, sometimes less is more.  Instead of adding many different systems, lets shave off the fat of what we have, and look at the meat. 

 

Must have mods should be removed, this mainly fits for weapons, serration, barrel diffusion etc. Remove these mods (refund the resoruces used to level them), and build their stats into the weapon.  This would need to be done when the rest of the game balance is getting reworked too, so that we have a nice shift across the board, otherwise balance would be even worse going one way or the other (players being even more powerful or severely underpowered). 

 

Without going into an essay or small novels worth of detail here (I swear I made a document somewhere), I think the following will give you an idea what I think warframe should be.

Ever see Star Wars, specifically, The animated series or the clone wars (2002-2003)?

Jedi (warframes) kill hundreds or thousands of droids, eventually an enemy comes along (bane, dooku, ventress etc) that is a mini-boss that you fight, sometimes having a bigger impact than a mini-boss would have, but you get my point. 

All the special units should be treated like mini-bosses and have their spawns and frequency adjusted as such. NOX walks in the room, 2+ players help to deal with him, he can be solo'd but it will be harder than before. Because rebalance has happened, we don't need invincibility/immune mechanics like we did in the past, giving more creative freedom for enemies to have more abilities, movement and counters to players.   In turn, we players now can have the ability for wombo-combos (think zephyr's tornadoes + embers world on fire as an example), because of all the frames we have, we can easily make some interesting combos to use in battle that not only look cool (fire tornadoes!) but actually have an impact (Hydroid #1 + Frost #2 or #4 for massive hail bombs).    

 

The thing is, the skill/talent tree system doesn't have to as complex as POE. It can be a simpler variant which can even be implemented in to the current mod system. All they have to do is to give players the incentive to pick a play style, based on how they mod their frame. Which means, we need to have more meaningful modding options. 

Even if they manage to remove the concept of do it all frames and weapons, that would bring some form of a balance into the game.

Also a better designed enemy AI with certain distance closing/grabbing abiltiies would accomplish what you've suggested with the mini boss thing. If  you can'T easily dance around them(because they are too clunky and stupid) then you'd need assistance or play extremely good to be able to deal with them.

But to me this all comes down to wishful thinking. This is a 6-7 year old game and while we've had some core changes like melee and damage 2.0, the fundementals remained the same. 

So at the very very worst case(IF DE doesn't bother to redesign certain aspects) we should at least have an additional difficulty level with proper rewards. That would also satisfy the veteran base to a certain degree.

 

[AcceI]

Dont even bother asking. 

They had their chance and blew it.(Years ago)

Now ppl play Warframe like a dynasty warriors game.

Edited June 22, 2019 by AcceI

[Chappie]

20 minutes ago, AcceI said:

Dont even bother asking. 

They had their chance and blew it.(Years ago)

Now ppl play Warframe like a dynasty warriors game.

And that is a problem?  I like it...but I guess I don't matter I guess since I'm wrong based upon another person opinion which is fact because we are all entitled to our own facts except...mine are always wrong.  

[Tinklzs]

31 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Which means, we need to have more meaningful modding options. 

I feel it can be reached by working with what we have, rather than making everything new from scratch.  By making mods .. possibly dynamic (having more synergy with each other) and definitely looking at the underused ones or outright niche/bad ones and making them more relevant I feel could make the system better. Without the need of talent trees, those are hard to balance around if it isn't the focus of your game.  Games like Borderlands and even Killing Floor 2 (with it's extremely simple ) tree(s) work because the game was designed around that aspect. Warframe wasn't, and rebalancing it around that aspect I feel would take more time and effort (per frame, mind you) than focusing on the mod system.  

The general mod system works like gear does in MMOs, the augment system works similarly to a skill tree - changing how different abilities work in part or as a whole. Improving these rather than creating a whole new system, again, I feel is better. 

35 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Also a better designed enemy AI with certain distance closing/grabbing abiltiies would accomplish what you've suggested with the mini boss thing. If  you can'T easily dance around them(because they are too clunky and stupid) then you'd need assistance or play extremely good to be able to deal with them.

Exactly, this is what I feel is the true challenge in games like this. Not every enemy needs to be Agent Smith or a Manic, but having some of the sprinkled in the normal enemies adds new dynamic fights and intrigue that currently isn't there. (Which what you said is what I've been saying for awhile). Happy we agree on something.

37 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

So at the very very worst case(IF DE doesn't bother to redesign certain aspects) we should at least have an additional difficulty level with proper rewards. That would also satisfy the veteran base to a certain degree.

Proper rewards and scaling rewards are... hard to manage in a game like this. Yes, I advocate for them and truly want them, but DE has to do it right - or they can screw up balance in another form, economy.   

What are the most hated sortie rewards? Ayatans. Many have asked in the past (myself included) why we have 4000 endo + anasa ayatans, when both give the same reward? Because one is tradeable and the other is not. . If you don't capitalize on that one aspect, sure in numerical value ayatans are inferior - but if you do, then you can help starting out players with endo for must have mods or trade for plat. Which I think is great.  

What I think is trash though, is credit cache's and under 300-400 endo amounts litter warframe's drop tables, not even mentioning basic mods that have no business being in those drop tables in the first place or in mini-boss drop tables like G3, Zanuka, The Wolf or Stalker. That irks me to no end, to get something so common from a rare mob - a slap in the face.  

If they do it right, give correct amounts etc - then all is good. If they don't, they can easily make rewards like 2000 endo from Arbitrations, obsolete, all due to how fast or efficient it may be to farm somewhere else (like excavations for example).   

[Tinklzs]

8 minutes ago, Chappie1975 said:

And that is a problem?  I like it...but I guess I don't matter I guess since I'm wrong based upon another person opinion which is fact because we are all entitled to our own facts except...mine are always wrong.  

I understand the mindset though, if someone is steadfast in their line of thinking, even if they have the power to change it, some won't. That has been proven with other game developers in the past, so I understand his cynicism. 

[Gurpgork]

On 2019-06-21 at 12:41 PM, Cubewano said:

I'm just saying the rationale that we have to be able to consistently keep up with scaling enemies on a constantly even field into eternity is nonsense and completely invalidates the entire purpose of that design.

I suppose we have nothing to debate then, because I agree with that, too. 😛

There really does need to be a concrete balance point. Questions like "how long should it take to kill a level 100 enemy" and "what is the highest level of enemies we can feasibly fight" should both be questions we know the answer to. 

[Hawk_of_the_Reborn]

No