Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

(PS4)MyUnhealthyHobby

(MyUnhealthyHobby’s) Ember Rework idea.

Recommended Posts

21 hours ago, Teridax68 said:
Quote

I'm not saying that DR is my preference for damage mitigation. I would've preferred that she had gotten more mobility, along with some iframes while casting some abilities & stuns.  I am saying that you just can't truthfully say "they're changing her identity" because that would be false. 

But it's not false, because Ember up until recently was a glass cannon frame. You claim that I'm ignoring her identity prior to Update 5.whatever, yet you're ignoring her identity since then, and for whichever reason are choosing to stick to one really antiquated past version of her as her One True Identity, while glossing over the identity and gameplay she's had for the longest part of the game's lifespan.

There's a reason they're reverting to her *original* design.... this latest one hasn't been working out, and it's not what they meant for her to be. Hence, it's not the identity they wanted for her.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:
5 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

Now it doesn't ignore enemy armor, and the damage isn't just a continued AoE effect. Hence now it's not an overpowered "press and forget" ability. 

That's my point. 

But your point is wrong, again because you are failing to acknowledge the version of Ember that has existed for the longest time. That's my point.

And it's the version players keep asking to rework. Plus even if that existed for the "longest time" that doesn't mean it fits their original intents for her, or that they can't change it to be something else if they wanted to. They are the devs afterall; it's *their* vision that they're trying to bring into the game. You can't exactly say their vision is "wrong. You can say it's not fun, you can say you don't enjoy it, but you can't say it's wrong, or not what they intended. Ember is simply whatever they decide she is, even if they do change their mind about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Maka.Bones said:

There's a reason they're reverting to her *original* design.... this latest one hasn't been working out, and it's not what they meant for her to be. Hence, it's not the identity they wanted for her.

But they're not in any way reverting to her original design, though: she's losing Accelerant, Fire Blast works completely differently, and World On Fire has been replaced entirely. The one thing she is getting back is a steroid that only vaguely resembles Overheat. Your narrative here simply makes no sense.

1 minute ago, Maka.Bones said:

And it's the version players keep asking to rework. Plus even if that existed for the "longest time" that doesn't mean it fits their original intents for her, or that they can't change it to be something else if they wanted to. They are the devs afterall. 

Yes, but that does not mean players have asked for Ember to be reverted to her previous self, nor is that what is being implemented. It doesn't matter what the "original intent" for her was in this respect, because it clearly changed radically. DE are certainly the developers, but you are not, and you do not get to invent out of the blue the notion that Ember is being reworked into some kind of tank, and so purely because she is being given a defensive tool just like any other recently-released or reworked frame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:
12 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

There's a reason they're reverting to her *original* design.... this latest one hasn't been working out, and it's not what they meant for her to be. Hence, it's not the identity they wanted for her.

But they're not in any way reverting to her original design, though: she's losing Accelerant, Fire Blast works completely differently, and World On Fire has been replaced entirely. The one thing she is getting back is a steroid that only vaguely resembles Overheat. Your narrative here simply makes no sense.

11 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

And it's the version players keep asking to rework. Plus even if that existed for the "longest time" that doesn't mean it fits their original intents for her, or that they can't change it to be something else if they wanted to. They are the devs afterall. 

Yes, but that does not mean players have asked for Ember to be reverted to her previous self, nor is that what is being implemented. It doesn't matter what the "original intent" for her was in this respect, because it clearly changed radically. DE are certainly the developers, but you are not, and you do not get to invent out of the blue the notion that Ember is being reworked into some kind of tank, and so purely because she is being given a defensive tool just like any other recently-released or reworked frame.

She didn't originally have accelerant. Yes her new rework works differently... that's the point of a rework.

And i might not be a dev, but i'm not the one saying "ember is wrong now" you are. You don't get to say that to the game creators lol. They're the ones who get to pick what they want ember to be, and it's their vision. 

You can say "she's not fun" you can say "this isn't what I wanted" but you can't tell them on a feedback post that "you're wrong about ember's identity or design" because they're literally the ones who create and decide that. 

And yes, a radical change is THE POINT of a rework. But feel free to say you don't enjoy it if you don't. Feel free to say you want something else instead. Feel free to say what you want instead. But they're probably "changing everything" if that's what most players have been asking for. You can help by helping them make tweaks in a direction that would be more fun. Not by telling the devs that they're wrong about what they did or didn't want ember to be lol. They can change their minds if they want to lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

She didn't originally have accelerant. Yes her new rework works differently... that's the point of a rework.

Then why are you insisting that she is being reverted to a version of her that clearly has very little to do with her new intended playstyle, and came from a completely different state of the game?

2 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

And i might not be a dev, but i'm not the one saying "ember is wrong now" you are. You don't get to say that to the game creators lol. They're the ones who get to pick what they want ember to be, and it's their vision.

Wrong... how? What are you even accusing me of here? My simple point, one that others have brought up as well, was that frames are being saddled with damage reduction not because it's a part of their identity, but because that is simply what frames currently need to survive high-level content. It is you who stepped in to make the dubious claim that, actually, DE intended to rework Ember into a fire tank all along, and so despite a patent lack of supporting evidence to that effect.

2 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

You can say "she's not fun" you can say "this isn't what I wanted" but you can't tell them on a feedback post that "you're wrong about ember's identity or design" because they're literally the ones who create and decide that. 

Sure, except I'm not telling DE, they're wrong about her identity, I'm telling you that you're wrong to pretend like you are singlehandedly Digital Extremes, and the sole authority on what identity they are trying to give her, again in total absence of anything to back you up. You are quite simply making things up, for reasons I do not understand other than some vague desire to appear smarter than everyone else on this thread.

2 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

And yes, a radical change is THE POINT of a rework. But feel free to say you don't enjoy it if you don't. Feel free to say you want something else instead. Feel free to say what you want instead. But they're probably "changing everything" if that's what most players have been asking for. You can help by helping them make tweaks in a direction that would be more fun. Not by telling the devs that they're wrong about what they did or didn't want ember to be lol. They can change their minds if they want to lol

Which I did, including in the very post you jumped on once you decided to hijack this thread. You keep trotting out this argument regardless of context in an attempt to frame your opponent as unproductive, when in reality it is you who are contributing negatively to discussion by rejecting valid arguments out of hand, and refusing to let others express criticism if you personally disagree with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

~~snip~~

1) They're reverting her more to her older intended design, by removing accelerant and giving her a form of DR and armor bypass (melting armor). Her new design is more bursty, and less sustained damage though, and yes that's different. I think the point of a rework is to try different things, so an argument of "you're making something different" isn't productive. an argument that "we want you to change her, without changing her" is also not productive. It doesn't tell them what you specifically want. You cant get angry with the devs, if you're not being specific yourselves. 

1.2)No, DR isn't exactly necessary to be added to her rework. You're right that they could go about other ways, but this is the direction they decided on. Yes it's also different from her current design, but they are trying to give her a rework... and change how she currently plays. It was already in her original intended design, so that's not something new or different from her original envisioned concept--it's not a far-fetched ability to give her, and it doesn't really change her core gameplay or overall design THAT MUCH. So if you want something different, you need to *explain* what you dislike, what you would like better, and why you like something else better...

2) You're telling the devs that their intent for ember is wrong, by saying "the new changes don't align with her intended identity"...They're the ones who pick what her "intended identity" is man.. they can change what it is~ 

3) Saying "she shouldn't be [this], because it isn't a part of her identity" or "because it changes her identity" isn't good feedback, and it also isn't a valid argument because the devs are the ones who decide what's her identity. They can change their minds on whatever they want her identity to be. Even if they weren't reverting closer to her original design, they can still decide to make her something completely different, and the new thing would then be "her identity" because they're the ones who give warframes their "identity" and purpose/role. 

 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

You keep trotting out this argument regardless of context in an attempt to frame your opponent as unproductive, when in reality it is you who are contributing negatively to discussion by rejecting valid arguments out of hand, and refusing to let others express criticism if you personally disagree with it.

Nah, there have been several people who've actually been giving good and constructive feedback that I disagree with and I've literally told them "this is good feedback"

 Saying "something is wrong" isn't constructive feedback though. Saying "it doesn't feel like i'm playing with fire" isn't constructive feedback either, if you're not also saying what would make it feel more like you're "playing with fire. Saying "the new changes aren't aligned with her intended identity" is also not constructive feedback, because they already know they're reworking ember.

I'm trying to get you guys to be more specific about the types of changes you'd like to see. Not just say "i don't like this" without actually explaining what it is that you don't like, and/or what it is that you did like.

Explain things. Be specific and detailed in your suggestions, and in describing what you like or dislike. Acknowledge/explain things you *did like, so the devs know what direction to continue taking. Then explain what you didn't like, and why you might enjoy something else better. .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

My simple point, one that others have brought up as well, was that frames are being saddled with damage reduction not because it's a part of their identity, but because that is simply what frames currently need to survive high-level content.

this right here should be highlighted because it cannot be said enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone who is even paying attention can see that embers rework is just avoidance of the real issue. damage system needs an overhaul, enemy scaling/armor scaling needs an overhaul followed by a full rework of each frame to fit the new system. this is something that they seem completely unwilling to do so they use bandaids. no amount of rework is going to fix the fact that these overhauls need to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:
1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

My simple point, one that others have brought up as well, was that frames are being saddled with damage reduction not because it's a part of their identity, but because that is simply what frames currently need to survive high-level content.

this right here should be highlighted because it cannot be said enough.

Yeah, this is a fair/valid argument. I'm not knocking that possibility. But you're not giving feedback for alternatives, or improvements outside of "They could simply change the damage/armor scaling so we don't need so much DR, or damage mitigation" You could suggest other methods for damage mitigation instead. Have you also considered that this might just be the direction they want to take with the game?

They might be looking for new/different ways to add more challenge, and you could help them by suggesting things that add different types of fun challenges. Then it wouldn't just be adding more DR. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

Yeah, this is a fair/valid argument. I'm not knocking that possibility. But you're not giving feedback for alternatives, or improvements outside of "They could simply change the damage/armor scaling so we don't need so much DR, or damage mitigation" Or suggest other methods for damage mitigation instead. Have you also considered that this might just be the direction they want to take with the game?

They might be looking for new/different ways to add more challenge, and you could help them by suggesting things that add different types of fun challenges. Then it wouldn't just be adding more DR. 

suggesting they fix scaling is giving an alternative. ive also said some time ago that enemy lvl should be removed completely and that the conclave system should recieve an overhaul to properly detect a players power. the enemy should always be above the player (also should account for player power in a group) their by making every planet scale so there isnt this boredom that comes from being forced into lower lvl play.

none of this can even happen without addressing scaling and the damage system. again no amount of frame rework is going to matter while the core problem exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

suggesting they fix scaling is giving an alternative. ive also said some time ago that enemy lvl should be removed completely and that the conclave system should recieve an overhaul to properly detect a players power. the enemy should always be above the player (also should account for player power in a group) their by making every planet scale so there isnt this boredom that comes from being forced into lower lvl play.

none of this can even happen without addressing scaling and the damage system. again no amount of frame rework is going to matter while the core problem exists.

Ok, then suggest a new/different alternative... something that hasn't already been suggested. Suggesting new scaling will probably take them longer than reworking melee, because then they would also have to review & re-tune every mod, every weapon, and all existing warframe powers. 

Edit: It's basically asking for them to make a completely new game. So we need to suggest different/alternative/approachable/practical ways to accomplish a parallel goal/result that would emulate better scaling... something that isn't just "make a new game"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

Ok, then suggest a new/different alternative... something that hasn't already been suggested. Suggesting new scaling will probably take them longer than reworking melee, because then they would also have to review & re-tune every mod, every weapon, and all existing warframe powers. 

i and others have already suggested the rework of the modding system. most of what you are saying have been suggested over the life span of this game. some of us are just repeating whats been said and is continuing to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

i and others have already suggested the rework of the modding system. most of what you are saying have been suggested over the life span of this game. some of us are just repeating whats been said and is continuing to be said.

That would still require them to basically make a new game (except for the art & graphics). Think more bite-sized. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

They might be looking for new/different ways to add more challenge, and you could help them by suggesting things that add different types of fun challenges. Then it wouldn't just be adding more DR. 

i dont consider OHKO and bullet sponge to be challenging. they are just ways to avoid making a interesting robust AI system or do something about power creep.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

i dont consider OHKO and bullet sponge to be challenging. they are just ways to avoid making a interesting robust AI system or do something about power creep.

Ok, a better AI system is something they could chew on--that's better feedback. That's a more bite-sized approach. AI would also help with the powercreep, and to introduce new types of challenge. what kind of AI though? 

What else do you suggest about power creep, that isn't just "overhaul mods/scaling"? Again, think  something bite-sized, because even "New AI" will probably take a long ass time. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

Ok, a better AI system is something they could chew on--that's better feedback. That's a more bite-sized approach. AI would also help with the powercreep, and to introduce new challenge. what kind of AI though? 

What else do you suggest about power creep, that isn't just "overhaul mods/scaling"? Again, something bite-sized, because even "New AI" will probably take a long ass time. 

there is nothing they can do about power creep not short of removing rivens/primed mods and arcanes. they dug this hole for themselves. what people are suggesting isnt asking for a new game. the problem is that they let things compound for too long that it seems like making any major balance pass seem like its a new game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

what kind of AI though?

im confused at this question. ever play F.E.A.R or half life 2? good AI has always existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

im confused at this question. ever play F.E.A.R or half life 2? good AI has always existed.

AI is just half of the equation. Enemy desing has to change. If any enemy was truly smart they would jusdt stay 40 meters away from saryn or equinox because any other action would result in their death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

im confused at this question. ever play F.E.A.R or half life 2? good AI has always existed.

It's not a question of whether or not "Good AI" has existed. It's just that you need to explain to the devs what *good* looks like to you. Otherwise they won't know what you mean by "good AI"... this is why I keep trying to tell you guys to EXPLAIN things, and give detailed examples/suggestions. \

What is special about the AI in F.E.A.R. or Half-life 2? What did you like about it, or stood out the most? 

12 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

there is nothing they can do about power creep not short of removing rivens/primed mods and arcanes. they dug this hole for themselves. what people are suggesting isnt asking for a new game. the problem is that they let things compound for too long that it seems like making any major balance pass seem like its a new game.

I disagree here. How does power creep, exclusively correlate to those things? And what exactly do you mean by "power creep"? because to me those are just progression tiered gear... just like how almost every other game has different quality/rarity of equipment. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, keikogi said:

AI is just half of the equation. Enemy desing has to change. If any enemy was truly smart they would jusdt stay 40 meters away from saryn or equinox because any other action would result in their death.

spore has 100m+ with a 25m+ spread they cant avoid that. also equinox can just move around another thing they couldnt avoid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, keikogi said:

AI is just half of the equation. Enemy desing has to change. If any enemy was truly smart they would jusdt stay 40 meters away from saryn or equinox because any other action would result in their death.

Enemy design is also part of AI. You build different AI for different enemies... but yeah both things can be improved on. What do you suggest though? What new designs? what do you want to see, or enjoy?  Give ideas.

You guys keep complaining about things, without explaining what it is that could be improved. What's lacking, what could be better, or suggesting new things they could add. 

It's GREAT that you're coming up with new things they can change, but you also need to provide examples, ideas, or explain what you like/dislike, and why. That's needed for constructive feedback. Otherwise they won't know what direction to take. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

I disagree here. How does power creep, exclusively correlate to those things? And what exactly do you mean by "power creep"? because to me those are just progression tiered gear... just like how almost every other game has different quality/rarity of equipment. 

 

rivens were slated for weapons in the low tier to bring them up to where stronger weapons are. what actually happened is they gave all weapons rivens including top tier ones. thats power creep. the introduction of stronger versions of already existing mods like Damage mods, faction damage mods, crit mods which are then boosted even further by rivens.

we have 7 pwr strength mods: Blind Rage. Intensify, Transient fortitude, Augur Secrets, Growing Power, Power Drift. Umbral Intensify this is a clear sign of power creep

even though we have less of the other types still having alot of the same ones that are stackable is power creep.

its one thing to get a strong mod that replaces a weaker one as a form of progress its another when you can use that same mod with something else that has the same exact stat. that isnt progression.

DE's Response to this gross increase in player power is OHKO and Bullet sponge but are now giving players DR/armor strip like its going out of style because of OHKO/sponge they introduced.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, EinheriarJudith said:

spore has 100m+ with a 25m+ spread they cant avoid that. also equinox can just move around another thing they couldnt avoid.

Are you disagreeing for the sake of disagreeing. If you read the text carefully you would realise my point is , the smart decision is just to stay away from warframes because most enemies dont have any tools do deal with them.

15 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

Enemy design is also part of AI. You build different AI for different enemies... but yeah both things can be improved on. What do you suggest though? What new designs? what do you want to see, or enjoy?  Give ideas.

The only solution warframe can use is give some enemies weapon damage immunity and other enemies skill immunity . warframe just has to many broken system , anything but immunity can be bypassed with enough brute force. 

DE realised that and we've been getting damage imune (Nox ) and skill imune enemies.

19 minutes ago, Maka.Bones said:

You guys keep complaining about things, without explaining what it is that could be improved. What's lacking, what could be better, or suggesting new things they could add. 

If I was going to attempt to adress a fundamental flaw on warframes desing I would create my own thread , because you know you can fix fundamental flaws with a bamdaid. It is impossible to adequately explain a solution to warframe damage system. As per Enemy desing I also thing on of that sometimes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, keikogi said:

~snip~

 

no i just highlighted some problems. if enemies really want to avoid death from those 2 frames DE needs to slap "Line of Sight" on them and program the AI to take cover from maims deactivation forcing Equinox players to think about when and where to deactivate maim, and how enemies react to spored allies by also taking cover to avoid the spread of spore from getting crazy. none of which happens since spore has no line of sight and neither does maim.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Maka.Bones said:

1) They're reverting her more to her older intended design, by removing accelerant and giving her a form of DR and armor bypass (melting armor). Her new design is more bursty, and less sustained damage though, and yes that's different. I think the point of a rework is to try different things, so an argument of "you're making something different" isn't productive. an argument that "we want you to change her, without changing her" is also not productive. It doesn't tell them what you specifically want. You cant get angry with the devs, if you're not being specific yourselves. 

So they're reverting her to her original design... but also reworks should try different things... but I'm also criticizing her just because she's changing? What? Every stage of your argument here makes no sense: you're still holding desperately onto the notion that Ember is being reverted into her original playstyle just because some part of her kit has DR now, even though literally every ability is different, her overall playstyle will be radically different, and the game context in which she is playing is also almost totally different from Warframe in its early years. Your accusation that I dislike Ember's rework simply because it's making her different is a blatant lie, as not only have I never said anything to that effect, I have in fact vocally supported drastic changes to Ember long before her rework, including the OP's.

Quote

1.2)No, DR isn't exactly necessary to be added to her rework.

Why not? It clearly is, seeing how every new kit is being given damage mitigation. Even Vauban is getting armor: that's not him being reverted to his old passive or some "intended" niche of being a tank or whichever bull, that's him being given durability because every frame needs durability to be viable now.

Quote

You're right that they could go about other ways, but this is the direction they decided on. Yes it's also different from her current design, but they are trying to give her a rework... and change how she currently plays. It was already in her original intended design, so that's not something new or different from her original envisioned concept--it's not a far-fetched ability to give her, and it doesn't really change her core gameplay or overall design THAT MUCH. So if you want something different, you need to *explain* what you dislike, what you would like better, and why you like something else better...

Which I did at length, and as shown with your exchange with EinheriarJudith, your requests for explanation are nothing but sealioning: both of us have explained ourselves at length, made plenty of actionable suggestions and targeted criticism... yet to you, that is never enough. When criticism is given, you say we didn't explain ourselves. When we do, you accuse us of not proposing solutions for change. When we do, you tell us to come up with other solutions for change, because for some reason the first ones weren't to your satisfaction. Meanwhile, you continue to contribute nothing to discussion, and instead monopolize conversation and harass others who disagree with you through spam-posting. As it stands, I have stated clearly that I do not like Ember's current design, and believe she needs serious changes to improve. That does not, however, mean I need to automatically agree with DE's proposed rework, because I think their changes have severe issues as well.

Quote

2) You're telling the devs that their intent for ember is wrong, by saying "the new changes don't align with her intended identity"...They're the ones who pick what her "intended identity" is man.. they can change what it is~ 

Literally where? Point to where I said this, because as has been stated many times already, you are outright lying on this. My single point about Ember and her identity is that, as she stands, she is one of the game's few remaining glass cannon frames, and that if a glass cannon cannot remain a glass cannon and be viable in the current state of the game, then something about the current state of the game is severely wrong, namely the balancing of its enemy scaling and damage. It is you who then hijacked that statement by making the absolutely inane claim that we should be ignoring Ember's current kit, and instead looking exclusively at her original ability set from the game's launch. You are the literal only one talking about intent here, and have conjured up this utterly psychotic narrative that literally no-one else has ever bought into.

Quote

3) Saying "she shouldn't be [this], because it isn't a part of her identity" or "because it changes her identity" isn't good feedback, and it also isn't a valid argument because the devs are the ones who decide what's her identity.

... which is why I never mind that argument in the first place. I don't know how you managed to conjure up this delusion.

Quote

 They can change their minds on whatever they want her identity to be. Even if they weren't reverting closer to her original design, they can still decide to make her something completely different, and the new thing would then be "her identity" because they're the ones who give warframes their "identity" and purpose/role. 

Sure, except where did I argue against this? If DE wants to turn Ember into a tank, they can; my point has simply been that they're giving every new frame a tanking ability, clearly not because they want every frame to be a tank, but because 90% damage reduction or some similar durability boost has become the standard for frames to survive high-level enemy damage output. The only thing I've argued on Ember's identity is that DE's current frame design does not allow true glass cannons to exist, and that damage mitigation abilities have become so common that they do not even imply anymore that the frame is a tank, contrary to your baseless claim to the contrary.

Quote

Nah, there have been several people who've actually been giving good and constructive feedback that I disagree with and I've literally told them "this is good feedback"

The literal one person you praised on this thread, you praised because you thought they were being nice to DE by not directly criticizing the changes they were implementing. You did not even bother to give substantial feedback to their own, and were visibly not interested in the specifics of what they had to say. You're not accepting disagreement here, you're just trying to enforce white knighting.

Quote

 Saying "something is wrong" isn't constructive feedback though. Saying "it doesn't feel like i'm playing with fire" isn't constructive feedback either, if you're not also saying what would make it feel more like you're "playing with fire. Saying "the new changes aren't aligned with her intended identity" is also not constructive feedback, because they already know they're reworking ember.

Sure, which is why I substantiate my criticism with argumentation and examples. You should know this, because we argued on Gauss and how players perceived his meter in relation to Ember's new meter, so you pretending like I never gave specifics is yet another blatant lie.

Quote

I'm trying to get you guys to be more specific about the types of changes you'd like to see. Not just say "i don't like this" without actually explaining what it is that you don't like, and/or what it is that you did like.

Except when we do, you still bash us because literally no amount of specifics are good enough for you. It is not your job to police these forums on perceived quality of feedback, and it takes a monumental amount of arrogance and delusion to even believe you are entitled to do so. If you want good quality of discussion, leave the discussion, as you have done nothing but bog it down with pointless arguing and ill will.

Quote

Explain things. Be specific and detailed in your suggestions, and in describing what you like or dislike. Acknowledge/explain things you *did like, so the devs know what direction to continue taking. Then explain what you didn't like, and why you might enjoy something else better. .

Which both of us did, yet again. Let's turn the tables here: what specific criticism do you have to make? What do you like and dislike about the Ember rework, specifically? What would your take on Ember be? Because so far you've expended an awful lot of effort asking others to refine their criticism to whichever degree, but don't seem to have put even an ounce of that effort towards discussing her design yourself. So far you have done nothing but attack other posters and discuss the people in this discussion, rather than the subject of discussion itself; a wholly unproductive and parasitic endeavor.

8 hours ago, Maka.Bones said:

Ok, then suggest a new/different alternative... something that hasn't already been suggested. Suggesting new scaling will probably take them longer than reworking melee, because then they would also have to review & re-tune every mod, every weapon, and all existing warframe powers. 

Edit: It's basically asking for them to make a completely new game. So we need to suggest different/alternative/approachable/practical ways to accomplish a parallel goal/result that would emulate better scaling... something that isn't just "make a new game"

This is a prime example of the hypocrisy I'm pointing out: EinheriarJudith did give targeted, actionable suggestions at your request... only for you to automatically reject them under a whole bunch of flimsy excuses. According to you, once a suggestion is made, apparently no-one else is allowed to express their support for it. For all your talk about how we shouldn't assume what DE can and cannot do, you do exactly that here, and have attempted to impersonate DE on multiple occasions in this thread. For all your purported intent to refine design discussion, the moment you start talking actual design, the only thing that comes out of you is the most trite drivel, like the tactic you're using here of accusing the person of suggesting that Warframe be turned into an entirely new game, just because you personally dislike the suggestion. Not only have you failed to enrich discussion on this thread, your presence has been actively detrimental to productive exchange, and because of your arguing nobody since has been able to engage in anything here but platitudes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...