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

[(PSN)ErydisTheLucario]

On 2019-05-18 at 12:38 AM, 844448 said:

Well, how to make harder content without alienating a player base though?

So, how about adding damage cap/heavy damage reduction like wolf?

Because people kept crying about the wolf being tough.

[Loza03]

23 minutes ago, (PS4)ErydisTheLucario said:

Because people kept crying about the wolf being tough.

The wolf wasn't challenging, the Wolf was exactly the kind of railroaded design that I've been worried about.

The only real way to damage him was with a crit-focused weapon built for radiation. Status didn't work, so that ruled out a big chunk of the whole game's arsenal, and abilities didn't work, making pretty much any Warframe that wasn't a self-buffer unable to contribute to fighting him. If you preferred Status weapons, or didn't like bringing radiation or had a favourite Warframe like Limbo, Nova, Ash, what have you, well, then you were out of luck.

It's a one-path option, and punishes you for engaging in the variety and self-expression Warframe is supposed to encourage.

[(PSN)ErydisTheLucario]

15 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

The wolf wasn't challenging, the Wolf was exactly the kind of railroaded design that I've been worried about.

The only real way to damage him was with a crit-focused weapon built for radiation. Status didn't work, so that ruled out a big chunk of the whole game's arsenal, and abilities didn't work, making pretty much any Warframe that wasn't a self-buffer unable to contribute to fighting him. If you preferred Status weapons, or didn't like bringing radiation or had a favourite Warframe like Limbo, Nova, Ash, what have you, well, then you were out of luck.

It's a one-path option, and punishes you for engaging in the variety and self-expression Warframe is supposed to encourage.

I know dude, im just saying alot of people continued to moan and cry about how hard he was. Gameplay changes like that will likely enocurage more of those same complaints.

[Tinklzs]

55 minutes ago, (PS4)ErydisTheLucario said:

I know dude, im just saying alot of people continued to moan and cry about how hard he was. Gameplay changes like that will likely enocurage more of those same complaints.

Well yeah, because that's bad design - but that's the design that DE is limited to with their poor balance system.  There are only a handful of ways to make bosses or enemy types that are 'challenging' and the only forms of 'challenge' are, immunity to abilities, large health/armor pools or high amounts of damage.  That's it.

I think a complete rework of the system is in order, other games do power fantasy and still have balance and punishment for bad decisions on the player's part, warframe should be no different. You can be the all powerful tenno you want to be, but then some mini-bosses come around the corner like batman's joker or bane, and now you might need to re-think of a strategy. After defeating them, go about your day being the reaper of death for tens of millions of grineer/infested/corpus.

The issue is, players are worried that they're preferred version of Death Incarnate will get nerfed and become useless - I assure you, nobody is going to be vauban levels of useless (I mean, even DE won't touch him). However, this would require DE to think far far ahead, not only of how they want CC/Status, Status Duration/ Crits to work now but in the future. 

I think great potential can happen with a rework (like having wombo-combo frames, zephyr + ember (both their 4's) come to mind. Not to mention mods in general that aren't used, weapons that have a niche that simply aren't used that could be worked into being popular again.  Riven's being rebalanced to fulfill their original task rather than being meta makers etc.

 

So much great potential can happen here, as it stands, Warframe is becoming harder and harder to get into because you have all these toys to play with, but some are broken, others don't work - and many 'sandboxes' that you can play in have turds in them and aren't fun to play (salvage, defection etc.). 

 

[Cubewano]

4 hours ago, White_Matter said:

Balance is apples, nerfing everything is oranges. Like I said, I have nothing against balance and tweaks. 

But obviously balancing should be done within the context of the game. If you nerf everything, that isn't balance. It is like an overhaul in the wrong direction(backwards is always the wrong direction). 

They are already trying to control the power celing, by introducing new weapons/mods that are mostly sidegrades rather than upgrades(which is pretty underwhelming imo). Progress is made by going forward. If you introduce a gun/mod that is weaker to what I already have, there won't be any incentive for me to go get it(or play it), thus no incentive for me to play the game more. In my case, as someone who has been playing the game for over 6 years now, it has been stagnating for a long while. 

Unless they make a complete overhaul to the games core mechanics(which I don't think they ever will) I think  the only way to go is : New difficulty levels, better enemy AI, new enemy types, exclusive raid type missions(sorta like the void keys or raids back in the day) accompanied by nerfs, tweaks and balances within reason.

Nerfing and balance are part of the same spectrum, hardly an apples to oranges comparison. And you cannot take issue with the concept of nerfing while being in promotion of proper balance. 

Obviously. 

To control a power ceiling would require setting one first, which DE adamantly refuse or fails to do. Doing the horizontal tango with some mods is to prevent people from progressing faster towards the gaping hole in the roof that is the current power limits of this game, nothing more. And having power progression has nothing to do with having balance, both can co-exist, so this is an arbitrary fear. 

And maybe, though more of DE's jigsaw game balancing probably isn't what we need. Either way nerfs are still a necessity to progress with the games balance. 

[White_Matter]

1 hour ago, Cubewano said:

Nerfing and balance are part of the same spectrum, hardly an apples to oranges comparison. And you cannot take issue with the concept of nerfing while being in promotion of proper balance. 

Obviously. 

To control a power ceiling would require setting one first, which DE adamantly refuse or fails to do. Doing the horizontal tango with some mods is to prevent people from progressing faster towards the gaping hole in the roof that is the current power limits of this game, nothing more. And having power progression has nothing to do with having balance, both can co-exist, so this is an arbitrary fear. 

And maybe, though more of DE's jigsaw game balancing probably isn't what we need. Either way nerfs are still a necessity to progress with the games balance. 

I simply noted that nerfing/downgrading everything to make what we already have more challenging is a dimwitted idea and you mentioned balance in response. So within that context it is apples and oranges because I never said I'm against nerfs/balance/tweaks in general.

I agree that nerfs(and by the same token buffs) are necessities for a games balance but again that isn't what the op is suggesting. Op is basically saying that we should cover that gaping hole with a duct tape or even worse, take away our ability to fly so that no one can reach that roof. Like I said, the actual problem is that we don't have a clever, and a properly designed end game content, so increase in power serves no purpose in the long run. However taking away power will make things even worse, both short and long term.. Nerfs & Buffs can never replace actual content. It will only take us a few years back, only for us to get more powerful mods and find better strategies in time to breeze through the existing content once again. We will be on borrowed time till DE finds an actual solution. 

 

5 hours ago, Nirrel said:

I would agree with that statment and that is why I think that rebalancing/nerfing is the answer.

Progression had been dead in WF for years. There is no content avaible in the game right now that I cannot do with the stuff already present in the game a couple of years ago.

Progression isn't to gain more random items even if they are progressively more powerful items. Without content where you can use them, where they can give you the edge to succed doesn't feel like progression at all. It's interesting and sometimes can be enjoyable the new shiny toy, but in the end of the day it's pretty useless, cos everything stops at level 45 and we have literally 2 level 100 missions in game, nothing above...unless you wanna go endless. Even then though we are so powerful, that in between CC and raw power you can potentially go on forever. As it is WF from looter shooter did become a farming simulator with very cool gameplay mechanics.

Perhaps you are right and they can pull it of, but I was waiting for that for so long that I highly doubt that in the current state of the game that is even possible. Certainly many things have to change and there has to be inevitably nerfs to rebalance the gameplay with the avaible content.

I'm all for balance. If there is a game breaking cheese, change it. They have done so in the past. But unless those chages/balances come along with actual content, they won't serve anything.

I'm not just bored of oneshotting entire horde of enemies. I'm bored of oneshotting the same entire horde of enemies in the same exact mission I've been doing for years and years with no interesting rewards(in most cases).

Gaining more powerful items/mods/etc is a part of progression though. The only problem is, we don't have a proper end game to challenge it. 

For progression we need difficulty and reward. We lack both. Making everything weaker won't solve the problem. It'll just take us years back and we'll eventually get here again.

 

Edited June 20, 2019 by White_Matter

[Cubewano]

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

I simply noted that nerfing/downgrading everything to make what we already have more challenging is a dimwitted idea and you mentioned balance in response. So within that context it is apples and oranges because I never said I'm against nerfs/balance/tweaks in general.

I agree that nerfs(and by the same token buffs) are necessities for a games balance but again that isn't what the op is suggesting. Op is basically saying that we should cover that gaping hole with a duct tape or even worse, take away our ability to fly so that no one can reach that roof. Like I said, the actual problem is that we don't have a clever, and a properly designed end game content, so increase in power serves no purpose in the long run. However taking away power will make things even worse, both short and long term.. Nerfs & Buffs can never replace actual content. It will only take us a few years back, only for us to get more powerful mods and find better strategies in time to breeze through the existing content once again. We will be on borrowed time till DE finds an actual solution. 

You didn't note anything, you said no to any sort of nerfing as the op suggested and laughed it off saying power and big numbers are all that matters then made up your own conflict to prattle about. 

And I don't think you know what the op is saying going from your above response. The OP is saying we need large scale balance reform and adequate power ceilings where they are needed for the exceedingly broken/cheesable, which I fully agree with. There is no level of ai or creative map design that can counter the kind of unquestionable power levels we can scale up to right now, there are only restrictions, either to us, or to the enemies, to prevent us from instantly vaporizing anything in our path, anything less isn't going to have an effect. 

Setting a proper balance scale and reigning us down to it is the solution, leaving the untamed mess of power we have run wild because it's already here and just doing half assemblies around it that will all inevitably fail is not. Understand that no matter what if we want engaging and challenging content the nerfs will need to come, en mass, because we are well beyond the salvage point of power that can be adequately designed around. 

[DiabolusUrsus]

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

I simply noted that nerfing/downgrading everything to make what we already have more challenging is a dimwitted idea and you mentioned balance in response.

So why is it dimwitted? If the problem is that players have too much godly power to be challenged fairly, then nerfing the players instead of dreaming up more cheap "tougher" enemies is the simplest and most immediately effective solution.

Players respond just as negatively to cheap enemies as they do nerfs (case in point with the WOSS), so just implement the needed nerfs and move forward.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

So within that context it is apples and oranges because I never said I'm against nerfs/balance/tweaks in general.

... That's not what "apples and oranges" means, though.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

I agree that nerfs(and by the same token buffs) are necessities for a games balance but again that isn't what the op is suggesting.

OP suggested nerfs to prevent players from solo-OHKOing bosses and requiring support powers (y'know, co-op in a co-op game) to reach comparable damage output.

Using nerfs to balance out overpowered players is exactly what they suggested.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

Op is basically saying that we should cover that gaping hole with a duct tape

How is solving the root of the problem directly "covering it with duct tape?"

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

or even worse, take away our ability to fly so that no one can reach that roof.

... What? How does being unable to OHKO bosses (flying) translate to not actually being able to reach the roof (beat the boss)? The idea is that you CLIMB instead of fly, because it's harder but not impossible.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

Like I said, the actual problem is that we don't have a clever, and a properly designed end game content, so increase in power serves no purpose in the long run.

HAH.

Ok, so how would you propose a "clever, properly designed end-game" that doesn't nerf players?

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

However taking away power will make things even worse, both short and long term..

You repeat this a lot but never really back it up with anything substantive. How would nerfing player DPS be bad in the short term? How would it be bad in the long term?

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

Nerfs & Buffs can never replace actual content.

Who said anything about REPLACING content? Balance can and should occur alongside content releases.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

It will only take us a few years back, only for us to get more powerful mods and find better strategies in time to breeze through the existing content once again. We will be on borrowed time till DE finds an actual solution. 

Balancing isn't a one-and-done issue in any game that continues to add content. Achieving good balance is an important first step, but that balance has to be carefully maintained until the game is content-complete.

Balancing isn't done in complete stasis.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

I'm all for balance. If there is a game breaking cheese, change it. They have done so in the past. But unless those chages/balances come along with actual content, they won't serve anything.

That's the POINT though; we can't get actual content UNTIL good balance is achieved. DE simply cannot develop reasonably challenging content when players can nuke bosses with ease and shut off lesser AI at a whim.

The only way to artificially extend an enemy's existence on-screen is to give it high permanent damage reductions, ability immunity, and status immunity. And doing that for "end-game" content invalidates player progression more than nerfs ever could.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

I'm not just bored of oneshotting entire horde of enemies. I'm bored of oneshotting the same entire horde of enemies in the same exact mission I've been doing for years and years with no interesting rewards(in most cases).

That's fair, but rewards distribution (for mission variety) and enemy design are separate off-topic issues.

Also keep in mind that

a) player power directly affects mission completion rate, which limits viable reward distribution for DE, and

b) complex/interesting enemy design is meaningless when enemies don't actually survive long enough to do anything interesting. They need more screentime, and to accomplish that player DPS as a whole needs to slow down significantly.

12 hours ago, White_Matter said:

Gaining more powerful items/mods/etc is a part of progression though. The only problem is, we don't have a proper end game to challenge it. 

For progression we need difficulty and reward. We lack both. Making everything weaker won't solve the problem. It'll just take us years back and we'll eventually get here again.

Again, balancing is an ongoing responsibility for any game that continues to add content. DE needs to figure out how to carefully control power-creep if they are to have ANY hope of developing an end-game.

Step 1: set a max power limit where the player is done progressing vertically.

Step 2: rebalance the game to fit within that limit.

Step 3: ensure all continuing end-game progression is horizontal rather than vertical (doesn't exceed that limit, but provides new comparable options).

Step 4: Start fleshing out and refining existing "advanced" enemies (like Amalgams, for instance) now that they can survive long enough without getting permanently disabled by CC to actually do something interesting.

[White_Matter]

1 hour ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

So why is it dimwitted? If the problem is that players have too much godly power to be challenged fairly, then nerfing the players instead of dreaming up more cheap "tougher" enemies is the simplest and most immediately effective solution.

Players respond just as negatively to cheap enemies as they do nerfs (case in point with the WOSS), so just implement the needed nerfs and move forward.

... That's not what "apples and oranges" means, though.

OP suggested nerfs to prevent players from solo-OHKOing bosses and requiring support powers (y'know, co-op in a co-op game) to reach comparable damage output.

Using nerfs to balance out overpowered players is exactly what they suggested.

How is solving the root of the problem directly "covering it with duct tape?"

... What? How does being unable to OHKO bosses (flying) translate to not actually being able to reach the roof (beat the boss)? The idea is that you CLIMB instead of fly, because it's harder but not impossible.

HAH.

Ok, so how would you propose a "clever, properly designed end-game" that doesn't nerf players?

You repeat this a lot but never really back it up with anything substantive. How would nerfing player DPS be bad in the short term? How would it be bad in the long term?

Who said anything about REPLACING content? Balance can and should occur alongside content releases.

Balancing isn't a one-and-done issue in any game that continues to add content. Achieving good balance is an important first step, but that balance has to be carefully maintained until the game is content-complete.

Balancing isn't done in complete stasis.

That's the POINT though; we can't get actual content UNTIL good balance is achieved. DE simply cannot develop reasonably challenging content when players can nuke bosses with ease and shut off lesser AI at a whim.

The only way to artificially extend an enemy's existence on-screen is to give it high permanent damage reductions, ability immunity, and status immunity. And doing that for "end-game" content invalidates player progression more than nerfs ever could.

That's fair, but rewards distribution (for mission variety) and enemy design are separate off-topic issues.

Also keep in mind that

a) player power directly affects mission completion rate, which limits viable reward distribution for DE, and

b) complex/interesting enemy design is meaningless when enemies don't actually survive long enough to do anything interesting. They need more screentime, and to accomplish that player DPS as a whole needs to slow down significantly.

Again, balancing is an ongoing responsibility for any game that continues to add content. DE needs to figure out how to carefully control power-creep if they are to have ANY hope of developing an end-game.

Step 1: set a max power limit where the player is done progressing vertically.

Step 2: rebalance the game to fit within that limit.

Step 3: ensure all continuing end-game progression is horizontal rather than vertical (doesn't exceed that limit, but provides new comparable options).

Step 4: Start fleshing out and refining existing "advanced" enemies (like Amalgams, for instance) now that they can survive long enough without getting permanently disabled by CC to actually do something interesting.

It is dimwitted because it doesn't directly adress the problem. Therefore it can't be a solution.

It is a temporary bandaid, a bad one at that too.

What people need to get is that WF is designed as a horde shooter. You face hundreds of enemies each mission(sometimes thousands). The goal is to destroy them as quickly and effectively as possible. 

When the enemies reach a certain level(and armor and HP), you do need the big numbers to be able to accomplish that goal. IF you take away my 500k Daikyu headshot crits and replace them with 5k, then while you make the rest of the game more challenging, you also make endgame pointless because now that amount of damage will only tickle enemies past a certain point.

To be able to make the whole nerfing strategy work, you have to redesign the games core mechanics and I'm not sure if thats a good idea. 

I do agree on everything you said about balance, but then I never contested it in the first place I only contested the idea that "lets make everything weaker so that the game feels more challenging" 

As long as DE provides a balance strategy(and by that I'm not only talking about taking digits away from numbers) alongside with proper content, I'm all in for it. 

1 hour ago, Cubewano said:

You didn't note anything, you said no to any sort of nerfing

No I didn't.

I said "making everything weaker to make the game more challenging is a dimwitted idea."

 

[Gurpgork]

The problem with this idea is that it's not just a handful of things that the devs would have to nerf, because the balance problems in Warframe are so numerous, so wide reaching, and so deeply engrained in the game that changing them would be an absurdly huge undertaking. 

It's not just Chroma or Saryn. It's a complex system of interlocking problems. The way that damage mods stack to make a weapon thousands of times more powerful is kinda out of hand, but Grineer scale up HP and armor simultaneously when they level up, demanding that we have that kind of firepower. The immortal tanks and permanent invisibility we have access to are broken as all hell, but enemies have untelegraphed hitscan attacks, requiring us to have strong passive defense, since our active evasion just adds RNG based buffs. 

Yes, player power is broken. But enemies are also broken to accommodate that. So nerfing the overpowered stuff that players have would not make Warframe balanced. It would make it unplayable. 

We can sit around and say "well just fix the enemies, too!" but that would be such a huge undertaking and potentially alienate so many players that I honestly can't blame DE for not attempting it. 

[Cubewano]

33 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

No I didn't.

I said "making everything weaker to make the game more challenging is a dimwitted idea."

Separate to the conversation prompted by the op, you also just said no with no continuation to the op's suggestion of specific rebalancing and nerfing as needed which is all I addressed and all I care to address. 

But that said I don't care to argue about minutia, if you agree with broad scale balance and are fine with nerfing then there is no reason you should feel particularly opposed to the intent of the op and his message. Otherwise you should probably re-evaluate what you say your stance is, and what your stance actually is. 

Feel free if you wind up in the later to continue our debate about how we can obtain better balance however. 

[Cubewano]

33 minutes ago, Gurpgork said:

The way that damage mods stack to make a weapon thousands of times more powerful is kinda out of hand, but Grineer scale up HP and armor simultaneously when they level up, demanding that we have that kind of firepower. 

That's the thing though, it doesn't. The point of enemies scaling is (or should be) for them to gradually over power us, to present a growing difficulty curve that challenges us more and more until we can't go any longer and then we lose, otherwise what is the point of letting them scale infinitely? May as well just cap levels and leave that as the balance. People thinking we need to be able to compete with all levels of difficulty equally for eternity as they infinitely ramp up is what lead to us being this broken mess of balance that we are today.

 

[(PSN)Hooligonzo]

Eidolons?

I'd be happy if excess Arcanes could be traded as a token currency to get Arcanes I actually want.  The prices people ask for in the Trade channel are hilarious, ridiculous, and anathema to a good reward system.

[DiabolusUrsus]

1 hour ago, White_Matter said:

It is dimwitted because it doesn't directly adress the problem. Therefore it can't be a solution.

It is a temporary bandaid, a bad one at that too.

Denial might make you feel better, but it doesn't magically make you right.

If players are so powerful that DE can't effectively challenge them with an end-game, how is nerfing players anything OTHER than a direct solution to that problem?

1 hour ago, White_Matter said:

What people need to get is that WF is designed as a horde shooter. You face hundreds of enemies each mission(sometimes thousands). The goal is to destroy them as quickly and effectively as possible.

L4D is a horde shooter. Killing Floor is a horde shooter. Fricking ASTEROIDS is effectively a horde shooter.

Horde shooting is not incompatible with balance.

1 hour ago, White_Matter said:

When the enemies reach a certain level(and armor and HP), you do need the big numbers to be able to accomplish that goal. IF you take away my 500k Daikyu headshot crits and replace them with 5k, then while you make the rest of the game more challenging, you also make endgame pointless because now that amount of damage will only tickle enemies past a certain point.

And what is that certain point? Because I'm guessing that you aren't talking about balanced content as "end-game."

1 hour ago, White_Matter said:

To be able to make the whole nerfing strategy work, you have to redesign the games core mechanics and I'm not sure if thats a good idea.

Ah, so now we're going with argument from ignorance. Great.

1 hour ago, White_Matter said:

I do agree on everything you said about balance, but then I never contested it in the first place I only contested the idea that "lets make everything weaker so that the game feels more challenging" 

That is not the point of nerfing players. The point of nerfing players is to cut out the game-breaking aspects of player power: CC spam, DPS so high it can kill bosses in under a minute, effective immortality, etc.

In other words, weakening players so that the game can be challenging AT ALL, which is NEEDED to establish an "end-game" of any sort.

That doesn't mean players need to struggle to kill a Lancer in order to feel challenged. But you don't need a 500k Daikyu crit because you shouldn't be expected to fight enemies with that much HP in the first place.

Let's make the proper end-game weigh in at Level 80-100 or so, instead of requiring players to slog into endless scaling for over an hour to face one-dimensional sponges.

1 hour ago, White_Matter said:

As long as DE provides a balance strategy(and by that I'm not only talking about taking digits away from numbers) alongside with proper content, I'm all in for it. 

This is just jargon babble. It means absolutely nothing useful to anyone; you're just saying it because it sounds nice.

Player CC spam is game-breaking, because it shuts off the AI and therefore any possible threat it can present.

Player DPS is game-breaking, because it overkills enemies by an order of magnitude within the scope of balanced content. Players have to spend excessive amounts of time waiting for endless scaling to catch up with them.

Nerfing these game-breakers to enable challenge is more than a strategy. It is a solution. And it is absolutely necessary to produce "proper" content.

Though if you've got a different definition of "proper," please feel free to elaborate.

How would you go about producing a "proper" end-game without nerfing players? You dodged that question earlier; it's time to answer it or else you're just blowing hot air.

[Tinklzs]

2 hours ago, White_Matter said:

When the enemies reach a certain level(and armor and HP), you do need the big numbers to be able to accomplish that goal. IF you take away my 500k Daikyu headshot crits and replace them with 5k, then while you make the rest of the game more challenging, you also make endgame pointless because now that amount of damage will only tickle enemies past a certain point.

That's completely assuming that nothing else would be changed, just player damage (which wouldn't the case at all).

If I were to shave off 2 digits on your damage, I would be doing so to enemies as well and rebalancing them as well.

 

And like DiablousUrsus has said, just because it's a horde shooter doesn't make it immune to balance. You can have balance, have your powerful warframes AND have actual challenge all in one package.  (I'd also throw in payday 2 in that list).  Payday 2 is the closest thing to Warframe I can think of on all fronts. Enemies are easy until you reach a point, then they become super arbitrarily hard and tedious to fight, not because they're actually difficult - it's the same system to kill them as it was before. But now they have more health and deal  one-shot levels of damage, that isn't fun - that's tedious.  

With Warframe, we can have balance and fix many warframes/weapons/mods that aren't used and bring them up to par and make them viable and actually useful. Then make those 'would-be' enemies that are different than normal cannon fodder - actually be mini-bosses with abilities and mobility etc, to make them a micro-challenge to help the flow of the game.

 

It's fine if you're afraid of change, but it isn't fine making excuses for a broken system.

I've said it once I'll say it again. What are you so afraid of losing, that you'd risk Warframe being worse off for?

[PatternistSlave]

On 2019-05-18 at 1:09 AM, 844448 said:

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

So by "balancing for endgame" you really meant make Warframe not Warframe and instead Destiny.  I don't play Destiny and hate shooters btw.  So just **** me I guess, huh?  I just will never understand your type.  You have Destiny.  Why the hell must you have two of them at the expense of the game I like?

[844448]

9 minutes ago, PatternistSlave said:

So by "balancing for endgame" you really meant make Warframe not Warframe and instead Destiny.  I don't play Destiny and hate shooters btw.  So just **** me I guess, huh?  I just will never understand your type.  You have Destiny.  Why the hell must you have two of them at the expense of the game I like?

Because I'm tired of seeing people claiming there's no endgame and challenge I guess?

[PatternistSlave]

27 minutes ago, 844448 said:

Because I'm tired of seeing people claiming there's no endgame and challenge I guess?

That's not a problem with the game.  They whip each other into this crap same as they've now apparently got you believing it.  The reality is there isn't the demand for what they ask for.  I que up for a public ESO or Arbitration and I'm lucky if one person stays past 10 min.  Warframe is a casual experience with casual players.  That's just the game it is.

[844448]

Just now, PatternistSlave said:

That's not a problem with the game.  They whip each other into this crap same as they've now apparently got you believing it.  The reality is there isn't the demand for what they ask for.  I que up for a public ESO or Arbitration and I'm lucky if one person stays past 10 min.  Warframe is a casual experience with casual players.  That's just the game it is.

Apparently not for those that need to stroke their e-peen for "endgame" because they need to be acknowledged as "hardcore players"

[Gurpgork]

3 hours ago, Cubewano said:

That's the thing though, it doesn't. The point of enemies scaling is (or should be) for them to gradually over power us, to present a growing difficulty curve that challenges us more and more until we can't go any longer and then we lose, otherwise what is the point of letting them scale infinitely? May as well just cap levels and leave that as the balance. People thinking we need to be able to compete with all levels of difficulty equally for eternity as they infinitely ramp up is what lead to us being this broken mess of balance that we are today.

 

That's very true, but even so, it doesn't make sense for the EHP of Grineer enemies to scale exponentially, because that causes its own problems. Especially if only one faction works that way, because it's impossible to appropriately balance the time to kill of enemies if some of them scale linearly and some of them scale exponentially. Either you end up with massively overturned damage against the linear scaling enemies, or you have completely pathetic damage against the exponentially scaling enemies. Either one is trivial, or the other is insurmountable. 

That's why the Corpus and Infested have annoying gimmick enemies and the Grineer don't. 

Edited June 21, 2019 by Gurpgork

[Cubewano]

Just now, Gurpgork said:

That's very true, but even so, it doesn't make sense for the EHP of Grineer enemies to scale exponentially, because that causes its own problems. Especially if only one faction works that way, because it's impossible to appropriately balance the time to kill of enemies if some of them scale linearly and some of them scale exponentially. Either you end up with massively overturned damage against the linear scaling enemies, or you have completely pathetic damage against the exponentially scaling enemies. Either one is trivial, or the other is insurmountable. 

I don't disagree with anything you've stated, I am all for scaling adjustments and re-balancing as well and I'm not saying our current scaling is perfect, 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. 

If we got large scale balance changes to player's arsenals (largely toning down) I would certainly hope next up on the roster would be enemy scaling adjustments. 

[Tinklzs]

4 hours ago, 844448 said:

Because I'm tired of seeing people claiming there's no endgame and challenge I guess?

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

 

4 hours ago, 844448 said:

Apparently not for those that need to stroke their e-peen for "endgame" because they need to be acknowledged as "hardcore players"

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.

4 hours ago, PatternistSlave said:

That's not a problem with the game.  They whip each other into this crap same as they've now apparently got you believing it.  The reality is there isn't the demand for what they ask for.  I que up for a public ESO or Arbitration and I'm lucky if one person stays past 10 min.  Warframe is a casual experience with casual players.  That's just the game it is.

Odd, the arbitrations I do we stay for an average of an hour. ESO few play because.. well.. it isn't fun - and the rewards are boring.

Most of it is a casual experience, that they could take, polish and end up making better for those who want a challenge or something new to delve into.   Other games that have the same system as warframe have been able to do this, I see no reason why Warframe can't. (Payday 2, Killing Floor 1 / 2, WoW etc).

[White_Matter]

5 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Denial might make you feel better, but it doesn't magically make you right.

If players are so powerful that DE can't effectively challenge them with an end-game, how is nerfing players anything OTHER than a direct solution to that problem?

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.

5 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

L4D is a horde shooter. Killing Floor is a horde shooter. Fricking ASTEROIDS is effectively a horde shooter.

Horde shooting is not incompatible with balance.

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

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

5 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

And what is that certain point? Because I'm guessing that you aren't talking about balanced content as "end-game."

Past lvl 120-150. 

5 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Ah, so now we're going with argument from ignorance. Great.

No idea what your point is.

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.

5 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

That is not the point of nerfing players. The point of nerfing players is to cut out the game-breaking aspects of player power: CC spam, DPS so high it can kill bosses in under a minute, effective immortality, etc.

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.

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

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

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

This is just jargon babble. It means absolutely nothing useful to anyone; you're just saying it because it sounds nice.

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.

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

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Player CC spam is game-breaking, because it shuts off the AI and therefore any possible threat it can present.

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. 

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Player DPS is game-breaking, because it overkills enemies by an order of magnitude within the scope of balanced content. Players have to spend excessive amounts of time waiting for endless scaling to catch up with them.

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

 

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Nerfing these game-breakers to enable challenge is more than a strategy. It is a solution. And it is absolutely necessary to produce "proper" content.

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.

6 hours ago, DiabolusUrsus said:

Though if you've got a different definition of "proper," please feel free to elaborate.

How would you go about producing a "proper" end-game without nerfing players? You dodged that question earlier; it's time to answer it or else you're just blowing hot air.

Difficulty levels.

More focus on Disruption type of missions with added challenges.

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

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

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

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. 

 

[Tinklzs]

2 minutes ago, White_Matter said:

Difficulty levels.

More focus on Disruption type of missions with added challenges.

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

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

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

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. 

Difficulty levels I feel should be held more naturally, so after wave 10 for example your in 'hard', wave 20 is 'very hard' etc.

I agree, disruption for some issues it has, is very different in comparison to normal missions, and the difference - for the most part - is a good thing.

Agreed.

Disagree - that is what mods are for. So I retort with - improve mods and give them more diversity and more appeal rather than 'focus on these 4 stats'.

Which is what could happen if mods are improved - further promoting teamwork which is sorely lacking, so I half agree (just not on the method you proposed, skill trees).

I think it's a dance of sorts. instead of doing only one or the other, you do one in reaction of the other - like a dance.

Nerf enemy damage/scaling, nerf player damage and bring it to a plateau and balance around that central point, then branch out from there. Moving warframes, weapons, rivens etc up and down that plateau totem pole as needed until a semblance of balance is reached, bringing overpowered nukeframes in line and bringing up underused frames up to par.

It's all a dance of balance, you cannot have one without the other. 

[White_Matter]

11 minutes ago, Tinklzs said:

Difficulty levels I feel should be held more naturally, so after wave 10 for example your in 'hard', wave 20 is 'very hard' etc.

I agree, disruption for some issues it has, is very different in comparison to normal missions, and the difference - for the most part - is a good thing.

Agreed.

Disagree - that is what mods are for. So I retort with - improve mods and give them more diversity and more appeal rather than 'focus on these 4 stats'.

Which is what could happen if mods are improved - further promoting teamwork which is sorely lacking, so I half agree (just not on the method you proposed, skill trees).

I think it's a dance of sorts. instead of doing only one or the other, you do one in reaction of the other - like a dance.

Nerf enemy damage/scaling, nerf player damage and bring it to a plateau and balance around that central point, then branch out from there. Moving warframes, weapons, rivens etc up and down that plateau totem pole as needed until a semblance of balance is reached, bringing overpowered nukeframes in line and bringing up underused frames up to par.

It's all a dance of balance, you cannot have one without the other. 

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." 

Edited June 21, 2019 by White_Matter