(XBOX)CertainLeader6 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 4 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Are you sure you tried? What justifies your "salient point"? Clearly, your position doesn't apply to reality. In other words, you still took prodigious amounts of time to a post you had not bothered to read in full. But the resource costs aren't particularly meaningful, nor are Energy restores necessary to not suffer Energy constraints in the vast majority of content. For all intents and purposes, Energy may as well not exist as a constraint in the vast majority of cases, and this has nothing to do with whether or not players like running out of Energy. Whether or not we should remove Energy from our design completely is an entirely separate issue, and it feels like you've been confusing what is and what ought to be here. Gladly: These are all "non-subjective" reasons why self-damage is unpopular, all of which you have deliberately avoided addressing. You have certainly dismissed these in bulk as "subjective", just as you have "posited" the rather questionable assumption that self-damage can be reasonably expected to be under the player's perfect control, an assumption that is itself disproven by the above points. ... why not? It is certainly a solution, and if the fundamental implementation of self-damage does not work, and does not generate any tangible benefits, why preserve it? So much has been typed about whether or not it would be justified to remove self-damage, but really, the actual question here should be: why is the current implementation of self-damage worth preserving? What fun gameplay does it generate? How does it add to the game? Also, how can you still accuse me in good faith of using a bandwagon fallacy when I explained precisely to you why player consensus is relevant to the point? Simply throwing out fallacy names in pure ignorance of what's actually being said doesn't make it look like you know what you're talking about, especially when you also don't even read most of the post you're responding to. Once again, you repeat yourself while deliberately failing to address the point: nobody is saying players should be forced to use these weapons, but the fact that people are not being allowed to have a good time while using these weapons means they will not use those weapons, thus lowering their range of weapons they will realistically use, and thus lowering fun overall. When there is a whole range of toys for the player to pick from, it is less fun for only some of them to be fun, rather than for all of them to be fun. It does not take a genius to realize that asking for a range of weapons in Warframe to be unfun for the near-totality of players is going to lower the overall amount of fun that can be had in the game. At this stage, it is also worth mentioning that, for all your vociferous defense of explosive self-damage... you don't actually seem to want to engage with the mechanic much at all either. Your most played explosive weapon is the Kulstar, at a whopping 3.4% play rate. Tell me: with you positioning yourself as an extremist defender of explosives, if removing self-damage from launchers were to affect you so badly that you'd stop using them... how much fun would that actually reduce for you? If people who genuinely liked self damage (and genuinely liked, not played devil's advocate for on the forums) were to stop having fun then, but everyone else would play these weapons far more often, would that not increase total fun overall? Why not? In both cases, there are unnecessary divides to the viability of weapons that restrict the player's available roster and thereby limit diversity. If removing the one mechanic making these weapons unplayably bad to most players were to make them at least slightly more popular, why not go for it? ... why not? Simulor projectiles can't bounce back into the player's face, which can happen with the Penta or Tonkor. Clearly, there are more drawbacks available to launchers than just self-damage, with even the Tonkor being made a much slower weapon. Why then establish this arbitrary distinction? Where is the justification to any of your bolded statements here? No no, I actually did explain, as noted in the bulletpoints you have deliberately avoided engaging thus far. For someone accusing me of "no u", you are illustrating it perfectly here, as you are responding to a comment of my own that pointed out that your own position has degenerated into pure arguing by repetition, and insistence (with bolded text to boot) upon claims you've made that you've simply expected everyone to take as fact, without a shred of justification. Again, one need not play Warframe for any particularly long amount of time to notice that a) the player can move really fast, and is encouraged to, b) Warframe's tilesets are full of tight spaces and unusual level geometry, c) that level geometry's hitboxes don't always reflect what the player visualizes, and d) explosions are typically not conveyed well enough for the player to clearly know their radius, which leads to e) the player getting a projectile caught on a random bit of rapidly approaching scenery while moving (a process made all the easier thanks to multishot), and blowing themselves up. Your counterpoint to all this is... what, exactly? Because I did not in fact assume you were better than anyone: you chose, entirely unprompted, to boast about your self-presumed superiority, in a post where you have repeatedly insulted the intelligence and skill of other players by framing the problem of explosive self-damage as a failure of character. It is not simply the fact that you choose to aggrandize yourself (falsely, might I add, as noted by your rather unimpressive usage of explosives), it is the fact that you also openly disdain players who dislike self-damage that makes your attitude on this thread elitist. I'm sorry, how does this improve your argument in any way? Even if one were to assume that there were this "subtext" to frame your point in this manner (which there isn't), what you're simply saying here is that players criticizing self-damage are biased and unwilling to understand how self-damage can be fun. It is still a contemptuous and contemptible view of the playerbase. If nobody has to "git gud", why do you keep framing the issue of self-damage as one of pure personal responsibility and failure to play properly? Your attempt to rebrand yourself isn't quite working here, because you have been using your negative assumption of the playerbase's collective character as your central argument: if players aren't unskilled, and shouldn't have to bend over backwards just for a weapon to become less unpleasant... why still advocate for a near-universally unpopular mechanic that expects the latter? Why immediately jump to assumptions of player skill when someone mentions that self-damage can happen even to players who know how to use explosives, and so for reasons beyond their reasonable control? And this is where the problem lies, because you are deliberately ignoring all the situations that make your position less secure, which have been mentioned several times already. Even as you continue to backpedal and undermine your point further by admitting that, actually, not all self-damage can be attributed to a player mistake (in which case, why still have it?), you still refuse to acknowledge the rather basic fact that explosives can get caught on scenery in ways the player cannot reliably predict, whether it be because the game's parkour causes the irregular scenery to change so rapidly relative to the player that one cannot reasonably expect perfect awareness of its exact topography, or simply because factors such as deceptive scenery hitboxes, multishot, and random weapon spread based on accuracy all cause explosives to travel and collide in places the player cannot reliably calculate. I haven't, actually, because I just jump out of the way, and if I were to hide behind scenery the enemy would throw one of those grenades to dislodge me (which, by the way, tend to deal a fair amount of damage to defense objective, so best not camp it unless you can reliably kill everyone coming your way before they can attack... which would defeat the point of cover). The game actively tries to prevent you from playing it like a typical cover shooter, and you trying to tell me that any game with levels that are anything except flat, empty planes is a cover shooter I find literally incredible. Except when people camp Survival, it's by specifically going into small rooms so as to funnel enemies as quickly as possible, not to hide behind cover. Not only are you trying to desperately apply "cover" to any piece of vertical scenery, the way you describe gameplay in Warframe, including Survival camping strategies here, differs so severely from the actual game that it feels like you came here to discuss an entirely different video game, and just so happened upon the Warframe forums by accident. ... but then if that's what cover is, that cover does not in fact encourage the player to be stationary, not even Snow Globe, whose line of fire block was implemented in the hopes of trivializing defensive missions less (you'd have to get back into the globe or destroy it if an enemy went through). Ultimately, the game doesn't have a cover system and expressly discourages cover-based approaches, but even if one were to buy into the utterly insane claim that literally any solid object with height makes for a cover shooter, that cover does not actually encourage players to stop being mobile in Warframe, which was the original point that drove you to go into this tangent (but hey, exercising restraint and succinct responses amirite). I don't get run over by parked cars often, because I don't spend my life as a magic cyborg parkouring over, around, and under them at blinding speeds, in a sci-fi environment full of random bits of machinery and architecture sticking out, that I'm expected to move through at that same speed, while also shooting at other moving targets. It is difficult to adequately describe just how stultifyingly dumb your analogy here is. ... the Tonkor was used often, that does not mean it was incredibly well-liked, as noted by many complaints then. You are deliberately conflating popularity in terms of pick rate, and popularity in terms of enjoyment here, while also misunderstanding the difference between something that is and something that ought to be, itself typically known as an is-ought fallacy. Just because a weapon is picked often does not mean it ought to be so dominant. Meanwhile, if a mechanic is generally recognized as poor design, and does not in fact present real benefits, then it in fact ought to be removed. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Which false dichotomy? ... why? With current balancing you'd still be killing yourself either way. ... or just remove the self-damage? I think I understand your fallacy name-dropping better, because from the looks of it you just announce the fallacy you are about to commit. ... where did I dismiss them out of personal disbelief? I pointed out the issues with excessive abstraction and anecdotal evidence, and pointed out your "interpretations" continue to rely on the assumption that the player cannot possibly incur self-damage without it being the direct consequence of a mistake, an assumption you yourself have disproven by acknowledging the existence of alternative interpretations. Once again, explaining why you are wrong is not the same as dismissing you, and speaking of which, you are also dismissing my point here on the lack of consistent control players have over self-damage. See above. It was not the first time I explained it, either, so really, at this point you are simply wilfully denying arguments presented at you. But then having to make "safe shots" with poor knowledge of one's explosive radius implies bending even further backwards to accommodate a class of weapons whose punishment mechanic is poorly-conveyed by your own admission. Right here, you directly admit that you too acknowledge the poor communication of explosion ranges as a problem, so why are you insisting upon the opposite? ... where? I used "mistake" in quotation marks specifically to underline how self-damage can be incurred by accident, which you have so far purely framed as a player mistake. Are you so intent on parroting back my arguments at me as to deliberately misconstrue what I've written? ... I'm sorry, what? Why is the Lenz a "luxury"? Luxury by whose standards? Why would that validate self-damage through instant explosions? Literally no part of your claims here follow from each other or appear to have any grounding whatsoever; it's like you expect me to just take you on your word for everything you say here. Who's "we"? Not only is this a rather slimy ad hominem ("you're only complaining because you're lazy and don't want to be challenged"), it is rather precious that you would accuse me of entitlement when you are the one specifically asking to keep a poorly designed mechanic against player consensus: what makes you personally more entitled to this than a far larger number of players? Why are you so intent on denying fun to other players? Also, yet again, you ignore the point made and keep parroting the debunked notion that this is purely an issue of player skill, even though I pointed out that even if this were true, that would still not make you right: even if explosive self-damage was purely the result of player mistakes, which even you admitted not to truly believe in, the fact remains that it is reducing the fun of the majority of the playerbase with its existence. Thus, the correct move would be to remove it, because even if it were a skill-checking mechanic, it is one that has failed to generate any appeal. But this is simply not true, and you are merely repeating yourself here while drawing up yet another strawman of my position. As I have already pointed out, the fiddliness of comboes is getting removed, even though the fiddliness was deliberately meant to be a skill test. You, by contrast, are desperately trying to frame explosive self-damage as a pure skill test, because you think this somehow absolves it of criticism and the threat of removal. The fact remains that DE have shown themselves willing to change their game's design, and cut out stuff that doesn't work, in order to improve the game, with comboes being one such piece of design getting reworked. By contrast, your suggestion to tone down the numbers on self-damage do not alter the fundamental implementation of it, and therefore do not change its design. If self-damage were to, say, all be turned into the Lenz's implementation, that would be a design change, but as it stands you have been categorically opposing design changes to self-damage, for whichever arbitrary reason you chose on this forum argument. Randomly accusing me of shifting the goalposts to this argument and of being intentionally misleading, without even a hint of justification, is an ad hominem, one that adds strictly nothing to discussion. Moreover, as has already pointed out, you don't really seem to understand "tu quoque", as it applies specifically when one tries to defend oneself purely by accusing one's opponent of making the same mistake: by contrast, I have defended my position and pointed out the absurdity of your own accusations, all while pointing out what you did wrong, which for whichever reason tends to mirror almost exactly the accusations you levy at me at that same moment. Perhaps you believe that projecting your rhetorical flaws upon me, and thus anticipating the resulting criticism, will somehow magically protect you from it. And this is you merely denying yet another point that you are incapable of answering. You have elucidated nothing, and so far no single part of your post has said anything that hasn't been debunked already. I see the No True Scotsman fallacy has reared its ugly head here yet again. Tell me: why establish the false dichotomy of "natural" versus "unnatural" stealth here? How is it relevant to the argument? How does Assimilate Nyx disprove anything I've said so far about self-damage? You are visibly grasping at straws, while inexplicably hoping for me to fill in the gaps in your argumentation. No amount of pretentious expressions here (what does "absolute equivalence" even mean in this context?) disproves the fact that you have been proven wrong on the matter, and that your attempts at saving your argument only defeat it further: yet again, you are comparing picking a self-damaging weapon with deliberately sabotaging oneself in a playstyle that is clearly not encouraged. Effectively, you are trying to tell me that self-damage should stay, because apparently it's worth accommodating this mechanic specifically so that an incredibly small amount of players can have fun intentionally gimping their play. You are effectively one slip of the tongue away from accidentally admitting to me that not even you believe self-damage adds anything positive to gameplay. Repeating yourself here yet again will, yet again, not make you any less wrong on the matter. Tell me: how exactly do you reasonably expect a human being to not only establish a detailed set of relations between themselves (or their in-game avatar) and a complex, rapidly-shifting alien scenery many times a second, but also perfectly anticipate the random spread and trajectory of their explosive weapons, their poorly-conveyed range, and the disguised hitboxes of said scenery? In fact, how do you even expect a superintelligent being to predict all of this perfectly, when some factors are clearly random or otherwise out of the player's control? It doesn't matter how magnanimous you want to come across by listing a subset of cases, you are still deliberately ignoring the ones you visibly don't have a solution for... or at least, not one that wouldn't involve removing self-damage, or changing its implementation on most explosive weapons. I guess I could've just said "stealth develops upon the game's core mechanics whereas explosive self-damage goes against them", which still says something, but then I realized you were referring to your own post: In other words: you apparently think being expected to perform literally any action when playing a video game is equivalent to directly running against a game's core design, and incurring all of the resulting gameplay problems, for no tangible payoff. Impressive. If that is what you believe to be my argumentation, then you have fundamentally failed to understand my arguments (which wouldn't surprise me, considering you apparently don't even read them). If we were to reduce my position down to the simplest propositional logic: Self-damage on explosive weapons in Warframe exists to punish the player for making mistakes, and so is a punishment mechanic. Punishment mechanics are valid only if all punishments they issue stem from genuine player mistakes. Some instances of self-damage on explosive weapons in Warframe are incurred by factors outside of the player's control (e.g. random projectile travel/spread, scenery collisions the player could not have predicted, etc.). Therefore, self-damage on explosive weapons is not a valid punishment mechanic. Your disagreement stems from you denying point 3, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, which simply makes you wrong and unwilling to acknowledge reality. But also, along with that: A game should have a mechanic only if some sufficiently large portion of its playerbase considers that mechanic fun, if the mechanic is necessary to support another that is similarly considered fun, or if that mechanic contributes towards the game's artistic intent. Explosive self-damage in Warframe as currently implemented is largely considered unfun, does not support any other fun mechanic, and does not contribute towards the game's artistic intent. Therefore, Warframe should not have explosive self-damage as currently implemented. Simple stuff, really, though so far you have yet to produce any answer to this, besides "well I say it's fun (even though I barely use explosives at all) and my opinion on the matter is more important than everyone else's put together". But this is simply a lie, though? I pointed out that your argument was fallacious and purely based on conjecture, then pointed out that you accusing me of Tu Quoque didn't work, because I had not in fact accused you of hypocrisy in this particular point, let alone used it as "defence". As pointed out already in the very post you are replying to, you are the one who cited fallacy as your only defense, and didn't even do it right. It's like you're engaging in this bizarre tactic where you keep making fallacious arguments, accuse me of the fallacies, then cry out "tu quoque" when called out on it. ... says who? You're just making stuff up at this point. You seem to misunderstand how the No True Scotsman fallacy works: "top athletes" is a quantifiable, objective measure insofar as one agrees upon the performance metrics and number of athletes being counted (which is the case when talking about the Olympics). However, when talking about how "no true Scotsman would do such a thing", or in your case, "true launcher enthusiasts", the fallacy comes from setting arbitrary standards in an attempt to create a false separation between two groups. In your case, it is obvious you are trying to contrast "true enthusiasts" to the rest of us in an attempt to frame those who dislike explosive self-damage as unqualified to speak on the matter. This is not, by the way, the only time you have committed this fallacy, as mentioned above. ... but we're apparently not allowed to have our feedback be accepted as valid, because "true enthusiasts" don't want that. Your rhetoric here is transparent. So, in other words, you are arguing on pure conjecture, all while trying to arbitrarily divide opponents of explosive self-damage in order to make the resulting subgroups appear somehow less overwhelmingly majoritary than they are. I myself have been one of the most vocal opponents of explosive self-damage in this thread, and even I'd fit into the "change it" camp if you decided to frame my posts under a certain light; that does not stop me and many other players from acknowledging that the current implementation of explosive self-damage is fundamentally poor. Where? Point to where, I want to see an actual cogent argument for once. Which question does this answer? Because the following question was a simple yes/no, and you seem to be saying "yes", even though you really don't want to admit it. Despite your protests, it sounds an awful lot like you admitting my arguments are not, in fact, as subjective as you tried to claim when you initially dismissed them. False: at the time of 99% Bless Trinity, the damage reduction was based off of the health of the most wounded teammate, which is what enabled self-damage Trinity. Blessing was then changed to have its damage reduction based on an average of the whole team, then capped at 75%, then changed to a fixed amount per cast. Self-damage was the key reason behind the initial change. Still, though, it's an interesting narrative you've got there; shame it's completely made up. False again, DE specifically changed Trinity to address self-damage. You are in blatant denial. Except as noted here, I am continuing to address you point-by-point, using evidence and reasoning to support what I'm saying. You, by contrast, are apparently unable to substantiate even your own defense of the same criticism. Not only are you engaging in the Tu Quoque fallacy you so frequently (and incorrectly) cite, your accusation is itself demonstrably untrue. ... just give even one example? You are transparently dodging the point here, while bizarrely trying to fault me for you losing your grip on the line of discussion. The fact that you literally cannot cite even a single concrete instance upon request, and have instead tried to stall, speaks volumes. ... literally just quote me, instead of paraphrasing? As it stands I have no way of knowing which part of my post you're even referring to, or whether you're referring to my post at all. And the contradiction is... where? The game encourages mobility, including in tight spaces, which make up the majority of its tilesets. Again, you aren't picking concrete examples here, you're just inventing stuff. Literally where? Again, you have been specifically asked to substantiate what you're saying... only to post absolutely nothing of substance, with only further repetition of your unsubstantiated claims. Clearly, you know how to use the quote button, so why can't you put it to proper use here? ... where? At this point it feels like you throwing out fallacy names is more of a nervous tic than a defense strategy, as I fail to see how "ad hominem" even begins to approach a solid counterargument here to what I've just said. Cool story bro. As it stands, though, I have criticized you on both the substance and the style of your arguments, both of which demonstrably have severe issues, issues that have visibly shown to be intentional. Are you writing this because you fear you might get another "black mark" out of this, and pre-emptively want to defend yourself? Pffffft. If "life called first"... why did you write such a large volume of text in response? It would've taken you comparatively less time to read my post in full without responding (and you could've always done that at a later date) than to do what you did instead. Honestly, it would be less embarrassing for you if you just came clean, and admitted that you simply felt compelled to answer my post, but didn't want to make the effort of reading through it before responding. You are, and are simply denying it here. Speaking of glossing over the substance in favor of the style, this is a good example of it. It doesn't matter how angry you feel in this argument, that does not change the veracity of what I'm saying, or the verifiability of my claims. There is objective common ground to be had, and if even that is too much for you to admit, then why are you even arguing in the first place? Nobody is compelling you to respond, either, so if you don't like getting called out on your rhetorical tactics... then don't engage in those rhetorical tactics, and perhaps try to actually listen to what someone else has to say instead, for a change. Immediately after attempting to clean up your image here, you shoot yourself in the foot: even when trying not to appear disdainful of the playerbase, you continue to disparage them by implying players who dislike explosives are biased and entitled. You are continuing to insinuate players are lazy, even as you deny the fact. One of your central arguments so far has been that essentially all instances of explosive self-damage are the result of playing poorly, too, so repeating your spiel here does not make it any more convincing. But, apparently, not the first whole part, which you responded to in detail, and so ignoring the fact that you ignored far more than just the end conclusion. I'd recommend not making so many excuses for yourself here, it just makes you look worse. See, I completely agree! Which is why I left plenty of room for debate on possible ways to address self-damage, and have repeatedly asked you to ground your claims in evidence, as I do mine. You should be directing this question towards yourself, as you are visibly more preoccupied with winning this argument, by whichever standard you have set for yourself, rather than saying anything constructive or with any actual relevance to Warframe. A view can certainly be wrong, but facts and evidence are objective, and I have been basing my opinions on those (which does not make my opinions objective, even if the facts are, just so you know). If you chose not to base your own views on anything factual, that's entirely on you; I don't have to pretend that everything is relative and up for debate just so that you don't feel offended when I point out you make claims that are provably false. It looks like you may not actually understand my position, then, because there isn't a contradiction to what I'm saying: I pointed out that self-damage, as implemented on most weapons in Warframe, has an unworkably poor design, and so the current implementation needs to be removed. Whether one is to do a pure removal, or replace that mode of self-damage with one that has genuinely good design, like on the Lenz, is secondary, as both approaches I think are fine. Your idea of "needs to be changed", by contrast, seems to resume itself to just toning down the self-damage numbers, an approach that, as I pointed out already, would not fully address the design issues being discussed. But this argument is in itself not valid, because the problem comes from the player believing their shot is correct, only for it to literally blow up in their face. Lecturing to that player with 20/20 hindsight that they should've used another weapon instead is pointless, and fails entirely to address the issue. As it stands, you are also missing the point to what I said regarding scenery and unpredictable collisions, a recurring issue with your post. By pure coincidence, this is apparently the only problem with self damage you apparently have no solution for, which suggests your opposition to what I'm saying lies more with you defending that one thread you made for fear it might be made irrelevant. ... which ignores how mobility interacts with terrain and cannot consistently enable "safe shots" owing to Warframe's frequently cramped tiles. You are, yet again, dodging the point, particularly since the situations I was referring to were not exclusive to the player constantly backpedalling in-game (which rarely happens in the first place anyway, so you isolating mobility to just that scenario also isolates your argument to just that scenario). This is false, as I also acknowledged the fact that many launchers also have weak damage, a statement you yourself responded to in the same reply. You are also misconstruing my argument as one of pure pick rates, when I am also arguing that players explicitly voice their dislike of launchers, citing self-damage as the reason. The writing is on the proverbial wall. If the issue were one of pure risk, and that risk were entirely within the player's control, which as pointed above, is not the case. Substitute "risk" for "poor design", and you have the actual point at hand (and, incidentally, that should explain why one of the solutions is better than the others). Buffing the Ogris to be not crap is not going to "strong-arm" anyone. If it were overbuffed, sure, but then that is a risk that can come from any buff. Why does the existence of alternatives make the removal of a poorly-designed mechanic unnecessary? One doesn't simply let a troubled part of the game rot just because some other bit of content exists. ... which, as explained already, did not arise as a result of the weapon's lack of self-damage, but simply because of its statistical strength and general lack of weaknesses at the time (notice how you conveniently forger a larger variety of possible factors when it suits you). Possibly, but then a large number of players agree with me. Conversely, you may be wrong here in telling me that it's not so bad after all. There is a difference between a niche weapon not being used because it's just not someone's style, and it not being used because, even though the person is interested, the weapon is poorly designed. As noted by the large number of people expressing a desire to use launchers, but an unwillingness to use them currently due to their self-damage, the latter is more likely to be happening than the former. By admission where? Being in the area where the arrow lands could also be the result of an accident, as noted above. Again with the talk of "luxury". Also, even assuming the player did make a mistake here, why does this mean this isn't a model for other launchers to follow? Your argument is circular here: as you yourself plainly listed, you are presupposing that the player has made a mistake by finding themselves in an explosive weapon's blast radius, and then drawing from that the conclusion that the the player has made a mistake by finding themselves in an explosive weapon's blast radius (and then, for whichever reason, making the leap that this somehow means we shouldn't change self-damage). For someone asking the other to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, you are explicitly giving me a line of argumentation that relies entirely on you being right as the premise. ... none of which have the self-damage model of the Kulstar, Angstrum, Penta, Ogris, etc. What you are saying here is ultimately a pure rehash of what I've been saying in my very first post, so if nothing else, I'm at least glad you're finally coming round. What does this follow from? Your conclusion immediately above conspicuously avoided mentioning the model of self-damage I had been criticizing. Your pretty against Lexicon, aren't you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George_PPS Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 (edited) If not for self damage, I’d use Zarr much more often. It’s fun and powerful but that self damaging is very annoying. Edited June 13, 2019 by George_PPS 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teridax68 Posted June 13, 2019 Share Posted June 13, 2019 1 hour ago, (XB1)CertainLeader6 said: Your pretty against Lexicon, aren't you? As in, the vocabulary of a language? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)CertainLeader6 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 3 hours ago, Teridax68 said: As in, the vocabulary of a language? You used a crap ton of his\her quotes, against him\her. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teridax68 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 5 hours ago, (XB1)CertainLeader6 said: You used a crap ton of his\her quotes, against him\her. Um... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)CertainLeader6 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 5 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Um... Verbal conflict with lexiconartist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teridax68 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 1 minute ago, (XB1)CertainLeader6 said: Verbal conflict with lexiconartist Ooh, fair enough. I'm not against them as a person, I just think their position doesn't really leave much room for healthy discussion, because it's founded upon a version of Warframe that has never existed, and implicitly blames players for the unpopularity of explosive weapons, even though explosives tend to be popular in pretty much every game where one can use them. It's difficult to talk about the problems with self-damage or propose real solutions when the automatic answer is "it's actually not bad, let's not touch these severely unpopular weapons at all because I said I like them as they are, and if you disagree you're a bad person", particularly when the actual gameplay benefits of self-damage are never even mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheLexiConArtist Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Are you sure you tried?. Tried, yes. Succeeded? Eh, not much, but you've deliberately opened it up even more in response, to the point where I think you're trying to make an argument by verbosity. Granted, I can be accused of the same, but at least I identified it as an issue and made an attempt to group some things back in. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: What justifies your "salient point"? Clearly, your position doesn't apply to reality.. This is an ignorance response. 'Reality' by your assertion alone. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: But the resource costs aren't particularly meaningful, nor are Energy restores necessary to not suffer Energy constraints in the vast majority of content. For all intents and purposes, Energy may as well not exist as a constraint in the vast majority of cases, and this has nothing to do with whether or not players like running out of Energy. Whether or not we should remove Energy from our design completely is an entirely separate issue, and it feels like you've been confusing what is and what ought to be here. Yet I who do not use Energy Restores except usually by accident (because I have them on the wheel just in case some exception comes along) seem to have millions of Nano Spores where other people run out.. and when asked how, usually cite restores. There's still an obligation there to address the issue, if it were removed then you'd not need Restores, your Zenurik focus would be unnecessary in favour of some other utility, and you'd get back Arcane slots for other utility. The undesirable outcome exists not removed. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Gladly: The game emphasises constant mobility via parkour, meaning the player will be frequently travelling through rapidly changing environments at high speed. Killing the player just because some bit of level geometry went up in front of them makes no sense. A tremendous portion of the game's levels still are made of small rooms and tight corridors. It therefore makes no sense in this context to punish the player for firing a weapon too closely. Every time self-damage has been used by players to their benefit, e.g. Trinity at the time of her 99% Blessing, or Chroma, DE treated that development as an exploit to be fixed, rather than an interesting player usage of mechanics. Self-damage is thus, by DE's own intentional design, a mechanic intended to have purely negative consequences upon our gameplay. In general, the philosophy of expressly punishing the player for playing "poorly", by whichever nebulous standard we are setting in this context, through mechanics built into their weapons, just doesn't work. Warframe is not a game that aims to punish the player to begin with, and if only some weapons are made to apply disproportionate punishment just for using them like any other weapon, players are simply going to drop those in favor of weapons that don't try to screw us over, as is the case now. These are all "non-subjective" reasons why self-damage is unpopular, all of which you have deliberately avoided addressing. You have certainly dismissed these in bulk as "subjective", just as you have "posited" the rather questionable assumption that self-damage can be reasonably expected to be under the player's perfect control, an assumption that is itself disproven by the above points. 2 points of subjectivity, 1 point of inaccurate subjective judgement, and one complete statement of non-argumentative supposition. Failed. I addressed the first three and the fourth isn't even an argument in support, it's just speculating the claim itself. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: ... why not? It is certainly a solution, and if the fundamental implementation of self-damage does not work, and does not generate any tangible benefits, why preserve it? So much has been typed about whether or not it would be justified to remove self-damage, but really, the actual question here should be: why is the current implementation of self-damage worth preserving? What fun gameplay does it generate? How does it add to the game? Also, how can you still accuse me in good faith of using a bandwagon fallacy when I explained precisely to you why player consensus is relevant to the point? Simply throwing out fallacy names in pure ignorance of what's actually being said doesn't make it look like you know what you're talking about, especially when you also don't even read most of the post you're responding to. There is no proof the fundamental implementation of self damage does not work by virtue of anything but your own opinion, but every argument against is flagrantly ignored/dismissed. It's entirely arguable that the fundamental idea of self-damage - instant risk to self upon failure, scaling with the potential reward - can work if rebalanced statistically. It adds to the game because it's a distinctive different challenge and playstyle posed to the user. Some people enjoy the risk. Some laugh about blowing themselves up (whether or not they think it's their fault, but especially when they do acknowledge this). Why are those players forced to change to suit you when alternatives to that playstyle exist for your purposes? Explanation flawed: fallacy remains. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Once again, you repeat yourself while deliberately failing to address the point: nobody is saying players should be forced to use these weapons, but the fact that people are not being allowed to have a good time while using these weapons means they will not use those weapons, thus lowering their range of weapons they will realistically use, and thus lowering fun overall. When there is a whole range of toys for the player to pick from, it is less fun for only some of them to be fun, rather than for all of them to be fun. It does not take a genius to realize that asking for a range of weapons in Warframe to be unfun for the near-totality of players is going to lower the overall amount of fun that can be had in the game. Let me fix that quote: "Some people are not having a good time while using these weapons." Not all, and those people aren't being disallowed, it's just their opinion and interpretation of the results. As I've said, that's fine, just don't use them then? You're still demanding change to personally suit you where it's unnecessary. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: At this stage, it is also worth mentioning that, for all your vociferous defense of explosive self-damage... you don't actually seem to want to engage with the mechanic much at all either. Your most played explosive weapon is the Kulstar, at a whopping 3.4% play rate. Tell me: with you positioning yourself as an extremist defender of explosives, if removing self-damage from launchers were to affect you so badly that you'd stop using them... how much fun would that actually reduce for you? If people who genuinely liked self damage (and genuinely liked, not played devil's advocate for on the forums) were to stop having fun then, but everyone else would play these weapons far more often, would that not increase total fun overall? Let me give you the inverse: Ivara's my primarily used frame and I spend a hell of a lot of argument on saying why she's currently a horrible experience in comparison to others. She simply functions in spite of that. I may not have the majority of usage time on explosives, but that doesn't mean I have no experience and doesn't mean I can't assess their use. Have you considered that the stats are padded out by all manner of things including time literally spent holding weapons without even using them? 9000 hours of 0-kill Spy missions would still be 9000 hours of playtime with whatever happened to be equipped at the time, despite 0 kills and affinity earned. Frankly, if I can use the Kulstar and not blow myself up with even less predictable cluster payloads then what does that say about you who seem incapable of controlling a singular payload? 'Fun' is a finite resource. A player is only playing/enjoying so many things for so much time. 1 hour of gameplay spreads evenly across loadouts used in that time. If sufficient arsenal variety exists, no net 'fun time' is lost by a player opting to use any given weapon over another. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: .Why not? In both cases, there are unnecessary divides to the viability of weapons that restrict the player's available roster and thereby limit diversity. If removing the one mechanic making these weapons unplayably bad to most players were to make them at least slightly more popular, why not go for it? You have 2 viable choices. Gameplay investment is divided over a diversity of 2 items. You have 300 viable choices and 10 inviable choices. Gameplay investment is divided over a diversity of 300 items. Point B is clearly more healthy than point A. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: ... why not? Simulor projectiles can't bounce back into the player's face, which can happen with the Penta or Tonkor. Clearly, there are more drawbacks available to launchers than just self-damage, with even the Tonkor being made a much slower weapon. Why then establish this arbitrary distinction? Where is the justification to any of your bolded statements here? Simulor effect range was, if memory serves, ~12m radial blast. Simulor firing range was, due to projectile behaviour, ~10m from point of fire (less due to gravitating of projectiles which could pull back for the initial combination) You cannot simply put self-damage on that because the basic operation shoots with you in the threat zone. The Tonkor bouncing back at you is a failure to execute. It shoots projectiles further than the 6m effect radius, you just shot a wall that caused it to reflect back. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: No no, I actually did explain, as noted in the bulletpoints you have deliberately avoided engaging thus far. For someone accusing me of "no u", you are illustrating it perfectly here, as you are responding to a comment of my own that pointed out that your own position has degenerated into pure arguing by repetition, and insistence (with bolded text to boot) upon claims you've made that you've simply expected everyone to take as fact, without a shred of justification. Again, one need not play Warframe for any particularly long amount of time to notice that a) the player can move really fast, and is encouraged to, b) Warframe's tilesets are full of tight spaces and unusual level geometry, c) that level geometry's hitboxes don't always reflect what the player visualizes, and d) explosions are typically not conveyed well enough for the player to clearly know their radius, which leads to e) the player getting a projectile caught on a random bit of rapidly approaching scenery while moving (a process made all the easier thanks to multishot), and blowing themselves up. Your counterpoint to all this is... what, exactly? This aids in creating distance between player and intended target. The player is not forced to use the weapon that does not work well in enclosed spaces (having a complete loadout except by selection) and most of these 'tight spaces' are still greater than the radius of payloads The player does not need to 'thread the needle' and doing so implies a risk that the firing angle may be just off and hit the object. Also, simply place yourself >6m away from dubious-hitbox object. A non-argument as mistake is made by the point of explosion, as explosives are generally fairly similar in size. The parked car ran out and hit me, officer, I swear. You controlled your vector of motion and by extension, any vector of scenery 'approaching'. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Because I did not in fact assume you were better than anyone: you chose, entirely unprompted, to boast about your self-presumed superiority, in a post where you have repeatedly insulted the intelligence and skill of other players by framing the problem of explosive self-damage as a failure of character. It is not simply the fact that you choose to aggrandize yourself (falsely, might I add, as noted by your rather unimpressive usage of explosives), it is the fact that you also openly disdain players who dislike self-damage that makes your attitude on this thread elitist. Me: I don't blow myself up on scenery by accident. You: Well most players "can't" achieve that and do blow themselves up by accident. 2+2 = I am performing above average players and cannot be considered a representative sample. That's not elitism. I don't actually think I am above other players, I think anyone who enjoys the weapons enough to do so could develop equal or greater finesse. You're the one claiming they can't as the basis of your argument. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: I'm sorry, how does this improve your argument in any way? Even if one were to assume that there were this "subtext" to frame your point in this manner (which there isn't), what you're simply saying here is that players criticizing self-damage are biased and unwilling to understand how self-damage can be fun. It is still a contemptuous and contemptible view of the playerbase. If nobody has to "git gud", why do you keep framing the issue of self-damage as one of pure personal responsibility and failure to play properly? Your attempt to rebrand yourself isn't quite working here, because you have been using your negative assumption of the playerbase's collective character as your central argument: if players aren't unskilled, and shouldn't have to bend over backwards just for a weapon to become less unpleasant... why still advocate for a near-universally unpopular mechanic that expects the latter? Why immediately jump to assumptions of player skill when someone mentions that self-damage can happen even to players who know how to use explosives, and so for reasons beyond their reasonable control? Will you quit with this waffling ad-hominem? For the fifty thousandth time, players don't have to find self-damage fun for themselves, but that doesn't mean nobody finds it fun. Players don't have to go to the trouble of learning launcher finesse if they do not wish to, as other weapons are available. Just use the other weapons if you hate self-damage so badly, you are not 'entitled' to have everything changed to suit you. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: And this is where the problem lies, because you are deliberately ignoring all the situations that make your position less secure, which have been mentioned several times already. Even as you continue to backpedal and undermine your point further by admitting that, actually, not all self-damage can be attributed to a player mistake (in which case, why still have it?), you still refuse to acknowledge the rather basic fact that explosives can get caught on scenery in ways the player cannot reliably predict, whether it be because the game's parkour causes the irregular scenery to change so rapidly relative to the player that one cannot reasonably expect perfect awareness of its exact topography, or simply because factors such as deceptive scenery hitboxes, multishot, and random weapon spread based on accuracy all cause explosives to travel and collide in places the player cannot reliably calculate. You say 'backpedaling', I say 'something I was already talking about before you were summoned to this thread'. I do refuse to acknowledge the remaining "fact", because it's not a fact, it's an opinion from anecdotal experience. Also can I get your parkour mods that physically warp level geometry? They sound rad af. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: I haven't, actually, because I just jump out of the way, and if I were to hide behind scenery the enemy would throw one of those grenades to dislodge me (which, by the way, tend to deal a fair amount of damage to defense objective, so best not camp it unless you can reliably kill everyone coming your way before they can attack... which would defeat the point of cover). The game actively tries to prevent you from playing it like a typical cover shooter, and you trying to tell me that any game with levels that are anything except flat, empty planes is a cover shooter I find literally incredible. You called it a cover shooter. I called it a shooter, with cover that can be used situationally. One of us is making a claim of predominance the other is not (hint: it's you). You don't have to sit behind that pillar for an hour, you can literally take that cover for half a second to make the rocket discharge, or the Ballista to miss the shot, then move out to deal with them. That's still usage of cover. Since you seem to love NTS, I should probably turn it on you here except more accurately. Are you telling me no true Warframe player takes cover behind scenery? 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Except when people camp Survival, it's by specifically going into small rooms so as to funnel enemies as quickly as possible, not to hide behind cover. Not only are you trying to desperately apply "cover" to any piece of vertical scenery, the way you describe gameplay in Warframe, including Survival camping strategies here, differs so severely from the actual game that it feels like you came here to discuss an entirely different video game, and just so happened upon the Warframe forums by accident.. Funny story: If you're exposed (read: have no cover from line of sight) to a ranged enemy, that enemy is disinclined to move towards your location. You break line of sight, funnelling them through a chokepoint. Stop the presses, this squad utilised a form of cover against opposition(!) 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: I don't get run over by parked cars often, because I don't spend my life as a magic cyborg parkouring over, around, and under them at blinding speeds, in a sci-fi environment full of random bits of machinery and architecture sticking out, that I'm expected to move through at that same speed, while also shooting at other moving targets. It is difficult to adequately describe just how stultifyingly dumb your analogy here is. The analogy works because in both cases the object was static and you are the one moving. It's your responsibility. The 'parked car' equivalent just highlights how much you sound like a mind-addled drunkard by saying the scenery is rushing you. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: ... the Tonkor was used often, that does not mean it was incredibly well-liked, as noted by many complaints then. You are deliberately conflating popularity in terms of pick rate, and popularity in terms of enjoyment here, while also misunderstanding the difference between something that is and something that ought to be, itself typically known as an is-ought fallacy. Just because a weapon is picked often does not mean it ought to be so dominant. Meanwhile, if a mechanic is generally recognized as poor design, and does not in fact present real benefits, then it in fact ought to be removed. It's not a difficult concept to understand. Oh but it was incredibly well liked. We had to go through >50 pages of this exact sort of point-for-point diatribe from the people defending their precious Tonka toy. Along with all those superficial "lol just don't use it" comments - which again, is completely inapplicable in the case of obligation to use few, versus a disinclination to use few. Just because something is disliked, doesn't mean it ought to be changed to suit the ones who dislike it. See, I can do it too. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Which false dichotomy? ... why? With current balancing you'd still be killing yourself either way. ... or just remove the self-damage? I think I understand your fallacy name-dropping better, because from the looks of it you just announce the fallacy you are about to commit. Oh look you're ignoring again. DE is disinclined to solely buff damage output because people are complaining about the input. If you gave the Ogris more damage, what would you get? "lol you still kill yourself with cautious even harder now". So unless you either stop complaining (accept fatal risk into your life) in which it doesn't matter how much damage they add, or accept rebalance so that we have a foundation that works better for you and scales better, DE won't be increasing the damage output. Because removing self-damage means you also don't get 'bombastic' output, because nobody wants the Tonkor meta back. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: ... where did I dismiss them out of personal disbelief? I pointed out the issues with excessive abstraction and anecdotal evidence, and pointed out your "interpretations" continue to rely on the assumption that the player cannot possibly incur self-damage without it being the direct consequence of a mistake, an assumption you yourself have disproven by acknowledging the existence of alternative interpretations. Once again, explaining why you are wrong is not the same as dismissing you, and speaking of which, you are also dismissing my point here on the lack of consistent control players have over self-damage. You say you can't do it, you refuse to believe it possible for players to do it, and that's all you have to counter my assertion - which is argued because you have superior mobility and a set of eyes with a brain. I know it to be possible, because I do it. But that's anecdotal, so instead I say it's generally possible because you have the necessary information fed into your eyeballs (minus the exceptions that prove the rule) to employ that control required. I'm not dismissing your point. I'm refuting it. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: But then having to make "safe shots" with poor knowledge of one's explosive radius implies bending even further backwards to accommodate a class of weapons whose punishment mechanic is poorly-conveyed by your own admission. Right here, you directly admit that you too acknowledge the poor communication of explosion ranges as a problem, so why are you insisting upon the opposite? The conveyance of the punishment mechanic is fine. You shoot the boom near you, you get hurt as well. That's all it needs to convey. When you pick up the weapon you don't kill yourself. Getting a couple ranks in it teaches you all the vanishingly small details of 'radius' (it's simply not that big, we aren't nuking tiles wholesale) and there you go. You know what you have and what is expected. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: ... where? I used "mistake" in quotation marks specifically to underline how self-damage can be incurred by accident, which you have so far purely framed as a player mistake. Are you so intent on parroting back my arguments at me as to deliberately misconstrue what I've written? ... I'm sorry, what? Why is the Lenz a "luxury"? Luxury by whose standards? Why would that validate self-damage through instant explosions? Literally no part of your claims here follow from each other or appear to have any grounding whatsoever; it's like you expect me to just take you on your word for everything you say here. You shot a wall. The wall didn't jump out in front of you. You shot a wall. You made a mistake. You made a mistake. You failed. You're given the grace to recover from failure. That's a luxury. Because you made the mistake. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Who's "we"? Not only is this a rather slimy ad hominem ("you're only complaining because you're lazy and don't want to be challenged"), it is rather precious that you would accuse me of entitlement when you are the one specifically asking to keep a poorly designed mechanic against player consensus: what makes you personally more entitled to this than a far larger number of players? Why are you so intent on denying fun to other players? Also, yet again, you ignore the point made and keep parroting the debunked notion that this is purely an issue of player skill, even though I pointed out that even if this were true, that would still not make you right: even if explosive self-damage was purely the result of player mistakes, which even you admitted not to truly believe in, the fact remains that it is reducing the fun of the majority of the playerbase with its existence. Thus, the correct move would be to remove it, because even if it were a skill-checking mechanic, it is one that has failed to generate any appeal. Jesus christ, if you're going to accuse me of an ad-hominem, at least go a paragraph afterwards without using one yourself! I mean, I've already refuted said accusations anyway, but you go right ahead and self-sabotage. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: But this is simply not true, and you are merely repeating yourself here while drawing up yet another strawman of my position. As I have already pointed out, the fiddliness of comboes is getting removed, even though the fiddliness was deliberately meant to be a skill test. You, by contrast, are desperately trying to frame explosive self-damage as a pure skill test, because you think this somehow absolves it of criticism and the threat of removal. The fact remains that DE have shown themselves willing to change their game's design, and cut out stuff that doesn't work, in order to improve the game, with comboes being one such piece of design getting reworked. By contrast, your suggestion to tone down the numbers on self-damage do not alter the fundamental implementation of it, and therefore do not change its design. If self-damage were to, say, all be turned into the Lenz's implementation, that would be a design change, but as it stands you have been categorically opposing design changes to self-damage, for whichever arbitrary reason you chose on this forum argument. Going from, say, 'pause combo' to 'alternate button combo' is not removing the fundamental mechanic. You just access the variants slightly differently (attack speed messes up pauses but does not impact alt-presses the same way). You might still be hasty and mash buttons, messing the combo up when you should be pressing a particular sequence, you might still whiff the same 'payoff' steps of the chain. Going from 'instant forfeit, scaling self-damage' to 'no damage' (or capped damage, smart-arming, et al) is fundamentally changing that. Capped damage will never kill you. Smart arming may never hurt you when a mistake is made. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Randomly accusing me of shifting the goalposts to this argument and of being intentionally misleading, without even a hint of justification, is an ad hominem, one that adds strictly nothing to discussion. Moreover, as has already pointed out, you don't really seem to understand "tu quoque", as it applies specifically when one tries to defend oneself purely by accusing one's opponent of making the same mistake: by contrast, I have defended my position and pointed out the absurdity of your own accusations, all while pointing out what you did wrong, which for whichever reason tends to mirror almost exactly the accusations you levy at me at that same moment. Perhaps you believe that projecting your rhetorical flaws upon me, and thus anticipating the resulting criticism, will somehow magically protect you from it. Actually, at best it'd be 'fallacy fallacy'. Which is kind of the point - you don't actually appear to understand them. If you're going to cite them, please get them right. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: And this is you merely denying yet another point that you are incapable of answering. You have elucidated nothing, and so far no single part of your post has said anything that hasn't been debunked already. Please cease wilful ignorance. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: I see the No True Scotsman fallacy has reared its ugly head here yet again. Tell me: why establish the false dichotomy of "natural" versus "unnatural" stealth here? How is it relevant to the argument? How does Assimilate Nyx disprove anything I've said so far about self-damage? You are visibly grasping at straws, while inexplicably hoping for me to fill in the gaps in your argumentation. You don't understand fallacies. Stop. Natural stealth or in other words, aided versus unaided. Inaros has huge natural tank, unaided health pool, where Trinity has aided tank through a couple stacking damage resistance buffs. Assimilate Nyx removes all self-damage from the equation. Your entire problem is therefore 'solved' if you're going to allow specific builds as arguments. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: No amount of pretentious expressions here (what does "absolute equivalence" even mean in this context?) disproves the fact that you have been proven wrong on the matter, and that your attempts at saving your argument only defeat it further: yet again, you are comparing picking a self-damaging weapon with deliberately sabotaging oneself in a playstyle that is clearly not encouraged. Effectively, you are trying to tell me that self-damage should stay, because apparently it's worth accommodating this mechanic specifically so that an incredibly small amount of players can have fun intentionally gimping their play. You are effectively one slip of the tongue away from accidentally admitting to me that not even you believe self-damage adds anything positive to gameplay. Let me break it down real simple like: 1+1+1+1... and 2+2+2+2... are correlating sequences. They are not absolutely equivalent, but they follow the same general trend (n*X). Self-damage explosives and Hildryn without shields are both correlating - they result in a greater-than-average risk of death. They are not equivalent, because Shieldless Hildy is a lot more of a burden than Explosives are. In both cases players can operate skilfully enough to subvert the risks and enjoy fun and satisfaction of doing so. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Repeating yourself here yet again will, yet again, not make you any less wrong on the matter. Tell me: how exactly do you reasonably expect a human being to not only establish a detailed set of relations between themselves (or their in-game avatar) and a complex, rapidly-shifting alien scenery many times a second, but also perfectly anticipate the random spread and trajectory of their explosive weapons, their poorly-conveyed range, and the disguised hitboxes of said scenery? In fact, how do you even expect a superintelligent being to predict all of this perfectly, when some factors are clearly random or otherwise out of the player's control? It doesn't matter how magnanimous you want to come across by listing a subset of cases, you are still deliberately ignoring the ones you visibly don't have a solution for... or at least, not one that wouldn't involve removing self-damage, or changing its implementation on most explosive weapons. I am this-close to just memeposting for how dumb this sounds. Let's call in that old 'git gudness' of Dark Souls, right? Vanishingly few people become skilled enough (enjoy getting there) to read every tell and execute flawlessly, defeating bosses without taking a single lick of damage consistently, right? They make mistakes. But those mistakes ARE STILL MISTAKES! It isn't that "I never blow myself up". I never blow myself up unless I made a mistake. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: I guess I could've just said "stealth develops upon the game's core mechanics whereas explosive self-damage goes against them", which still says something, but then I realized you were referring to your own post: Here's one of those direct "NO U" quotes you wanted so much. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: In other words: you apparently think being expected to perform literally any action when playing a video game is equivalent to directly running against a game's core design, and incurring all of the resulting gameplay problems, for no tangible payoff. Impressive. Fishing is against Warframe's core design. We have it. Some people like it, most likely don't care for it. Get rid, yeah? Oh wait no because it doesn't actually harm you. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: If that is what you believe to be my argumentation, then you have fundamentally failed to understand my arguments (which wouldn't surprise me, considering you apparently don't even read them). If we were to reduce my position down to the simplest propositional logic: Self-damage on explosive weapons in Warframe exists to punish the player for making mistakes, and so is a punishment mechanic. Punishment mechanics are valid only if all punishments they issue stem from genuine player mistakes. Some instances of self-damage on explosive weapons in Warframe are incurred by factors outside of the player's control (e.g. random projectile travel/spread, scenery collisions the player could not have predicted, etc.). Therefore, self-damage on explosive weapons is not a valid punishment mechanic. Your disagreement stems from you denying point 3, despite obvious evidence to the contrary, which simply makes you wrong and unwilling to acknowledge reality. But also, along with that: A game should have a mechanic only if some sufficiently large portion of its playerbase considers that mechanic fun, if the mechanic is necessary to support another that is similarly considered fun, or if that mechanic contributes towards the game's artistic intent. Explosive self-damage in Warframe as currently implemented is largely considered unfun, does not support any other fun mechanic, and does not contribute towards the game's artistic intent. Therefore, Warframe should not have explosive self-damage as currently implemented. Simple stuff, really, though so far you have yet to produce any answer to this, besides "well I say it's fun (even though I barely use explosives at all) and my opinion on the matter is more important than everyone else's put together". Again you employ this "OBVIOUSLY I'M RIGHT" perspective while accusing me of the same. You have still yet to disprove my rebuttals to 1.3 with anything beyond vague waffle and personal opinion. For the second list entirely, your conclusion is flawed. If the mechanic exists already and if the mechanic does not ACTIVELY work to the detriment of those who do not find it fun, then there is no obligation to change it. You say it 'denies fun' but as previously observed, this is not a founded claim as there is no obligation to engage with the unwanted mechanic. You're not being denied anything in the Primary slot of your loadout for not liking launchers, you just fill it with something else. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: But this is simply a lie, though? I pointed out that your argument was fallacious and purely based on conjecture, then pointed out that you accusing me of Tu Quoque didn't work, because I had not in fact accused you of hypocrisy in this particular point, let alone used it as "defence". As pointed out already in the very post you are replying to, you are the one who cited fallacy as your only defense, and didn't even do it right. It's like you're engaging in this bizarre tactic where you keep making fallacious arguments, accuse me of the fallacies, then cry out "tu quoque" when called out on it. ... says who? You're just making stuff up at this point. You seem to misunderstand how the No True Scotsman fallacy works: "top athletes" is a quantifiable, objective measure insofar as one agrees upon the performance metrics and number of athletes being counted (which is the case when talking about the Olympics). However, when talking about how "no true Scotsman would do such a thing", or in your case, "true launcher enthusiasts", the fallacy comes from setting arbitrary standards in an attempt to create a false separation between two groups. In your case, it is obvious you are trying to contrast "true enthusiasts" to the rest of us in an attempt to frame those who dislike explosive self-damage as unqualified to speak on the matter. This is not, by the way, the only time you have committed this fallacy, as mentioned above. ... but we're apparently not allowed to have our feedback be accepted as valid, because "true enthusiasts" don't want that. Your rhetoric here is transparent. 1) You attempted to undermine me calling your arguments fallacious by saying I was pulling a fallacy. You also even misattributed the fallacy you chose. 2) Says basic understanding of logic because you can't be appealing to purity when you're observing data. It's hilarious this is the cornerstone of your rebuttal because it's one of the closest times I've been to leaning to your side of an argument, and you're so caught up you're trying to push me back over. 3) See 2). I'm not saying you can't or won't, I'm saying you don't. Claims and observations. Technically my example was limited because, I suppose, you could argue that non-top athletes could enter the Olympics, they'd just fail to meet competition. I should have said "are competing" as that is more clearly observant than claimant. 4) Your feedback is that you don't like self-damage and find it difficult (or in your words 'impossible') to avoid. That is valid. Your subsequent demand is to have it changed to suit you. That is not valid feedback. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: So, in other words, you are arguing on pure conjecture, all while trying to arbitrarily divide opponents of explosive self-damage in order to make the resulting subgroups appear somehow less overwhelmingly majoritary than they are. I myself have been one of the most vocal opponents of explosive self-damage in this thread, and even I'd fit into the "change it" camp if you decided to frame my posts under a certain light; that does not stop me and many other players from acknowledging that the current implementation of explosive self-damage is fundamentally poor. You're the one originally claiming majority - I merely state that it is in fact likely due to the subdivisions that you are not in the majority for your specific solution. There's been a few problems over the course of failing to understand boolean logic on non-binary data. "Not positive" includes neutral as well as negative, "Not negative" also includes neutral. "Not neutral" only disincludes neutral and allows the full spectrum either side. As we have no real statistical data on something as fickle and fleeting as opinions, we can only draw supposition from the groupings in play. 23 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Where? Point to where, I want to see an actual cogent argument for once. Which question does this answer? Because the following question was a simple yes/no, and you seem to be saying "yes", even though you really don't want to admit it. Despite your protests, it sounds an awful lot like you admitting my arguments are not, in fact, as subjective as you tried to claim when you initially dismissed them. False: at the time of 99% Bless Trinity, the damage reduction was based off of the health of the most wounded teammate, which is what enabled self-damage Trinity. Blessing was then changed to have its damage reduction based on an average of the whole team, then capped at 75%, then changed to a fixed amount per cast. Self-damage was the key reason behind the initial change. Still, though, it's an interesting narrative you've got there; shame it's completely made up. False again, DE specifically changed Trinity to address self-damage. You are in blatant denial. Go back to your original summoning portal to the thread. By which I mean where you were quoted. I immediately rebuked. It's not a simple yes/no, and trying to make it one is false dichotomy. There are some tight spaces. There are never exclusively tight spaces that preclude that ~6m radius. No, you're still fundamentally wrong for the working assumption in general, you just had a couple actual exception cases which I knew about and addressed before you even showed up, stop trying to call this a personal victory. It was impossible to access the required extents of Blessing (primarily the DR) when it became relevant due to the flawed design. Self-damage emerged as a way to safely force that without risking one-too-many bullets causing outright death before Trin could finish casting. Self-damage was a treatment to the symptom, the design flaw was the cause which was subsequently treated to obviate the need for self-damage. Let me ask you something: Would Castanas Trin have worked if Castanas couldn't be pure radiation? Would it have worked if resistance to radiation couldn't be additively stacked to >100% for complete immunity? How many Trinities accidentallied themselves to death because they mistimed the manoeuvre? Just because removing self-damage was the selected response does not mean it was the correct response. Self damage, again, was merely a catalyst to the outcome, not the core cause of why it was present. Rectifying additive resistance stacking would have also removed the overwhelming Trinity Link gameplay while also solving issues with situationally-invulnerable enemies, whom unfortunately remain a problem. You can also still charge up damage into Nyx's Absorb with triggering explosives, which is fundamentally the same process - self-damage in and ignored, more damage out to enemies. QED. Aaand the reply box ganked almost the entire rest of the response when I tried to change something. I guess I have a ton of rewriting to do. Posting this bit to be edited.. god damnit, what a waste of time. This is why this over-verbose stuff detracts from legitimate conversation. Sorry, I'm going to half-ass this and chunk it in unattributed quotes for celerity's sake. RIP quality. Quote Cool story bro. As it stands, though, I have criticized you on both the substance and the style of your arguments, both of which demonstrably have severe issues, issues that have visibly shown to be intentional. Are you writing this because you fear you might get another "black mark" out of this, and pre-emptively want to defend yourself? Accused me of outright abuse. Just saying that I've not been infringed for it yet, so that's fairly baseless. Quote Pffffft. If "life called first"... why did you write such a large volume of text in response? It would've taken you comparatively less time to read my post in full without responding (and you could've always done that at a later date) than to do what you did instead. Honestly, it would be less embarrassing for you if you just came clean, and admitted that you simply felt compelled to answer my post, but didn't want to make the effort of reading through it before responding. Well look what just happened. Sucks to lose an hour's detailed rebuttal, and honestly, I had important things to do that limited how much time I could proceed right then. It takes sweet time to actually address things like this. Quote Speaking of glossing over the substance in favor of the style, this is a good example of it. It doesn't matter how angry you feel in this argument, that does not change the veracity of what I'm saying, or the verifiability of my claims. There is objective common ground to be had, and if even that is too much for you to admit, then why are you even arguing in the first place? Nobody is compelling you to respond, either, so if you don't like getting called out on your rhetorical tactics... then don't engage in those rhetorical tactics, and perhaps try to actually listen to what someone else has to say instead, for a change. Your 'verifiability' has mostly been through sheer repetition, unfortunately, calling things 'objective' when they're argued subjective, and 'ignored' when the address has either been overlooked or dismissed arbitrarily. Quote Immediately after attempting to clean up your image here, you shoot yourself in the foot: even when trying not to appear disdainful of the playerbase, you continue to disparage them by implying players who dislike explosives are biased and entitled. You are continuing to insinuate players are lazy, even as you deny the fact. One of your central arguments so far has been that essentially all instances of explosive self-damage are the result of playing poorly, too, so repeating your spiel here does not make it any more convincing. A player being imprecise or imperfect down not make them 'a lazy scrub', and all I'm saying is that they haven't elected to take the time to advance beyond said imprecision. Quote But, apparently, not the first whole part, which you responded to in detail, and so ignoring the fact that you ignored far more than just the end conclusion. I'd recommend not making so many excuses for yourself here, it just makes you look worse. I think I made some 'witty' comment here but it's gone now. Guess you'll just have to settle for please address my argument and not cast aspersions on my character. Quote See, I completely agree! Which is why I left plenty of room for debate on possible ways to address self-damage, and have repeatedly asked you to ground your claims in evidence, as I do mine. You should be directing this question towards yourself, as you are visibly more preoccupied with winning this argument, by whichever standard you have set for yourself, rather than saying anything constructive or with any actual relevance to Warframe. A view can certainly be wrong, but facts and evidence are objective, and I have been basing my opinions on those (which does not make my opinions objective, even if the facts are, just so you know). If you chose not to base your own views on anything factual, that's entirely on you; I don't have to pretend that everything is relative and up for debate just so that you don't feel offended when I point out you make claims that are provably false. Your "facts and evidence" have almost always been speculative and subjective, and this continued enshrinement of yourself as unassailably objective is kind of the point. Quote It looks like you may not actually understand my position, then, because there isn't a contradiction to what I'm saying: I pointed out that self-damage, as implemented on most weapons in Warframe, has an unworkably poor design, and so the current implementation needs to be removed. Whether one is to do a pure removal, or replace that mode of self-damage with one that has genuinely good design, like on the Lenz, is secondary, as both approaches I think are fine. Your idea of "needs to be changed", by contrast, seems to resume itself to just toning down the self-damage numbers, an approach that, as I pointed out already, would not fully address the design issues being discussed. You "pointed out" (actually argued that) it is an unworkable design when I disagree. The Lenz delay is still a luxury in giving you grace after making a mistake that does not need to be retrofitted to extant weapons. Quote But this argument is in itself not valid, because the problem comes from the player believing their shot is correct, only for it to literally blow up in their face. Lecturing to that player with 20/20 hindsight that they should've used another weapon instead is pointless, and fails entirely to address the issue. As it stands, you are also missing the point to what I said regarding scenery and unpredictable collisions, a recurring issue with your post. By pure coincidence, this is apparently the only problem with self damage you apparently have no solution for, which suggests your opposition to what I'm saying lies more with you defending that one thread you made for fear it might be made irrelevant. You have described an error in judgement which is still an error made by the player. Repeating this 'scenery' and 'unpredictable collision' idea of yours does not make it objective. But it turns out my solution even solves for that because in my rebalance you still have some iteration of Cautious Shot to fall back on if you are not comfortable - it's just less extreme of a reduction and/or more of a detriment to the total damage, in accordance with the risk/reward balance resulting from the formula in play. Quote ... which ignores how mobility interacts with terrain and cannot consistently enable "safe shots" owing to Warframe's frequently cramped tiles. You are, yet again, dodging the point, particularly since the situations I was referring to were not exclusive to the player constantly backpedalling in-game (which rarely happens in the first place anyway, so you isolating mobility to just that scenario also isolates your argument to just that scenario). The only tiles exhibiting zero 6m+ clearance spaces for entirely safe shots to be made are certain connecting corridors and dead-end 'locker rooms'. In cases where you are currently too cramped you have other weapons in your loadout unless specifically selected not to. You have the option to backpedal if the situation calls for it. Electing not to do so, and to instead fire explosives in close quarters, is your own responsibility. Quote This is false, as I also acknowledged the fact that many launchers also have weak damage, a statement you yourself responded to in the same reply. You are also misconstruing my argument as one of pure pick rates, when I am also arguing that players explicitly voice their dislike of launchers, citing self-damage as the reason. The writing is on the proverbial wall. I have already observed the inherent limitation on output changes to be related to the current criticisms of self-damage. You have no real way of knowing which of these people, including even the ones currently demanding no damage, would in fact ultimately become satisfied with a solely statistical (non-mechanical) rebalance. You might even be surprised yourself if it were offered. Quote If the issue were one of pure risk, and that risk were entirely within the player's control, which as pointed above, is not the case. Substitute "risk" for "poor design", and you have the actual point at hand (and, incidentally, that should explain why one of the solutions is better than the others). Argued above not to be the case, not objective. I argue it broadly is (barring the very specific exception cases). Quote Buffing the Ogris to be not crap is not going to "strong-arm" anyone. If it were overbuffed, sure, but then that is a risk that can come from any buff. As a matter of overall balance, yes, that is a risk with changes in general. But with how vehement you are against self-damage in its current form, the buff that would be needed for you to pick it up regardless is, implicatively, the strong-arming we wish to avoid Quote Why does the existence of alternatives make the removal of a poorly-designed mechanic unnecessary? One doesn't simply let a troubled part of the game rot just because some other bit of content exists. It's not that poorly designed. And it doesn't hurt you. Now, if friendly-fire were always on them as well, you might have an argument. But it only affects you if you use it. So, you can leave that impact to players who don't mind it nearly as much. Quote ... which, as explained already, did not arise as a result of the weapon's lack of self-damage, but simply because of its statistical strength and general lack of weaknesses at the time (notice how you conveniently forger a larger variety of possible factors when it suits you). The history went a little like this: TONKOR - PREDOMINANTLY USED - No risks, Incredible Reward Base launch level. Irrelevant self-damage, crit weapon, automatic headshots TONKOR - PREDOMINANTLY USED - No risks, High Reward Auto-headshots removed, slashing effectiveness by 75% in most content. Still dominating. TONKOR - Little-used - High Risk, Medium Reward Added self-damage to Tonkor Further reduced base stats of Tonkor So, hitting the reward alone didn't work. Applying the risk and further slashing reward together is why it dropped into outright disuse since. If it had been left at Stage 2 Reward with Stage 3 (actual) Risks it might have found a niche of players (other than Salty Susans who missed it being outright broken) actually using and enjoying it even with its self-damage in play, but without dominating everything else. Conjecture yes, but far from impossible. Quote Possibly, but then a large number of players agree with me. Conversely, you may be wrong here in telling me that it's not so bad after all. I've agreed it could stand to be rebalanced. Mechanically it's fine. I'm not the only one who thinks that way, I'm just the one most prepared to engage to this extent. Quote There is a difference between a niche weapon not being used because it's just not someone's style, and it not being used because, even though the person is interested, the weapon is poorly designed. As noted by the large number of people expressing a desire to use launchers, but an unwillingness to use them currently due to their self-damage, the latter is more likely to be happening than the former. Again working from an assumption that these players agree with you based on mechanics (above and beyond the identified actual problem cases) and would not be placated with statistical balance improvements. We can't know for certain unless we tried it. Quote By admission where? Being in the area where the arrow lands could also be the result of an accident, as noted above. Argued* Quote Again with the talk of "luxury". Also, even assuming the player did make a mistake here, why does this mean this isn't a model for other launchers to follow? Your argument is circular here: as you yourself plainly listed, you are presupposing that the player has made a mistake by finding themselves in an explosive weapon's blast radius, and then drawing from that the conclusion that the the player has made a mistake by finding themselves in an explosive weapon's blast radius (and then, for whichever reason, making the leap that this somehow means we shouldn't change self-damage). For someone asking the other to acknowledge the possibility of being wrong, you are explicitly giving me a line of argumentation that relies entirely on you being right as the premise. If you made a mistake, you made a mistake. That is 1=1 logic. Whether or not you are allowed the grace to recover from that mistake is a separate question - you are not necessarily entitled to recover from it, because you have to admit, you messed up. Perhaps there's opening for the niche of risky-but-more-gracious explosives as their own archetype expanding with future gear, but that doesn't need to detract from the highest-risk instant-forfeiture archetype (assuming said archetype is conferred appropriate benefits to compensate). Quote ... none of which have the self-damage model of the Kulstar, Angstrum, Penta, Ogris, etc. What you are saying here is ultimately a pure rehash of what I've been saying in my very first post, so if nothing else, I'm at least glad you're finally coming round. I've never said all future launchers have to use the current model in precision, I just argue against precluding the current model for current or future weapons. Even down to thematic 'realism' as with that other guy. Edited June 14, 2019 by TheLexiConArtist actually got to finish responding, sort of, hooray(?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gurpgork Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 On 2019-06-03 at 4:06 AM, (XB1)KayAitch said: On a gun like the Lenz it's a fun risk that adds to the enjoyment of using the weapon. It would be severely OP for its MR otherwise, but it's also a negative that you can overcome with player skill. For its MR, maybe. But it wouldn't ever become an irreplaceable God weapon like the Tonkor was. Even if it dealt the highest damage out of every weapon in the entire game and dealt no self damage, it's still painfully cumbersome to use--it has extreme ammo issues (even with its ammo mutation), a slow charge delay, fires a slow projectile, and then when it hits, its explosion is delayed for almost a full second. And even after all of that, it doesn't have superb damage and is very weak against armor. In the age of powerful hitscan weapons that can one shot an enemy from across the map and melee weapons that can deal hundreds of thousands of damage per swing, it would take a truly ludicrous weapon for us to end up with another Tonkor situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)KayAitch Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 36 minutes ago, Gurpgork said: But it wouldn't ever become an irreplaceable God weapon like the Tonkor was That's part of why the design is good: DE doesn't want any irreplaceable meta weapons. 38 minutes ago, Gurpgork said: And even after all of that, it doesn't have superb damage and is very weak against armor Yeah, from about 110 on it struggles, but then it's MR8. That's kinda my point. The Lenz is MR12 level damage with a bunch of problems that bring it down. 1 hour ago, Gurpgork said: In the age of powerful hitscan weapons that can one shot an enemy from across the map That's a short list of high MR non-AoE weapons. I mean, the Rubico Prime can one-shot pretty much any enemy, but just the one. The Komorex can AoE at long range but it does self damage. I guess the Opticor Vandal does all that without self damage, but it's also a hard to get (or at least a long grind to get) MR14 weapon, that also has a slightly cumbersome charge mechanic. 1 hour ago, Gurpgork said: melee weapons that can deal hundreds of thousands of damage per swing Melee can deal crazy damage, but it's a weapon type that doesn't do self damage (glaives aside). 1 hour ago, Gurpgork said: It would take a truly ludicrous weapon for us to end up with another Tonkor situation. I'm not so sure, take the self damage off the Prisma Angstrum and you have a 100% status multishot weapon (so every one of 7-24 rockets will proc) that does about 22k when it doesn't crit and a 4/5 riven dispo. It's hard to see that not becoming instant meta. I think weapons need downsides, and self-damage is an interesting one, as it's just about the only one you have to learn to manage rather than mod out. I suppose you could count the Tigris Prime's awful duplex trigger in that too. The question is whether the mechanic should be in the game at all, and I think it should. It just needs a rebalance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone_Dude Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 On 2019-06-13 at 6:55 PM, (XB1)CertainLeader6 said: STRESS. Games like Warframe can at times be stressful. Have you ever felt the stress? Maybe when you first started playing? Feeling stress while playing Warframe? Not really. Maybe my skin is too thick. Don't try to walk away from the main argument by talking about feelings. Let's talk facts. Warframe is simply not a difficult game. You can bypass all the "stress" of stealth by simply equipping an invi warframe, as I mentioned. Or by using the classic "no one can spot me because they're all DEAD" strategy. Or even by just straight up abusing the braindead AI. Enemies don't seem to pay much attention to you bullet jumping around, as long as you don't stand right in front of them. There is also a void demon mode that grants you toggleable stealth and quick dashes. It's exploitable, because it's a power fantasy, not some realistic stealth simulator with deep-coded behaviour patterns for every random grunt. Hell, enemies don't even have problems with you breaking cameras and hacking terminals right in front of them during stealth. Even PayDay pulled it off better. Once you know the maps of Spy sections, they become a chore, not some stressful adrenaline-infusing endeavour. Your original point about high risk/high reward does not apply to self-damage in Warframe. As I already mentioned, self-damaging weapons are not powerful enough for the off-chance of keeling over once your teammate decides to jump in front of you. In my original comment, actually. Arca Plasmor doesn't deal self-damage, yet it has same or hell, even higher killing capabilities compared to, let's say, Ogris. Ignis Wraith doesn't deal self-damage as well, yet has same rank requirements(which DPS is based on, as DE stated) and higher KPS output and ammo efficiency. Your argument simply does not apply in that situation, comprendere? Your point about "stealth movement" does not work as well. What stealth are you talking about? Are you some MR1 player that just discovered stealth kills with Paris and Kunai? And now you crouch around and bullet jump over enemies, thinking that you're smart? The fact that enemies don't notice a huge purple power ranger flying around at mach 1, with a giant cape and a rocket launcher hanging off their butt, by itself destroys your argument about Warframe being a stealth-centered game. Movement is made to MOVE FASTER and evade attacks. Literally every move increases your velocity and parkour maneuvers decrease enemy accuracy. Rolling even decreases damage you receive and negates knockdowns. It has as much stealth orientation as standing still outside the fov of your enemies. Also, one of the main ways to gain ammo is to collect it from fallen enemies. So charging into them is the best thing you can do when you're dry and don't have some kind of vacuum or ammo packs/tabs. If you do - you won't be running dry, unless you use some weak weapons that has negative ammo efficiency. And melee exists, you can use it while charging, no ammo required, also works GREAT for breaking stealth since one slide attack with a good long-range melee will kill everything in sight, without making a sound(aside from gurgling sounds of fallen foes). Sarpa and Redeemer have limitless supply of HIV infused lead as well. So, how's punishing players for picking a weak weapon is a good idea? Let me tell you, it's not. Not in the current state of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)CertainLeader6 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 6 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Ooh, fair enough. I'm not against them as a person, I just think their position doesn't really leave much room for healthy discussion, because it's founded upon a version of Warframe that has never existed, and implicitly blames players for the unpopularity of explosive weapons, even though explosives tend to be popular in pretty much every game where one can use them. It's difficult to talk about the problems with self-damage or propose real solutions when the automatic answer is "it's actually not bad, let's not touch these severely unpopular weapons at all because I said I like them as they are, and if you disagree you're a bad person", particularly when the actual gameplay benefits of self-damage are never even mentioned. Well, people can have opinions, which is why there is never going to be world peace Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akots Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) On 2019-06-06 at 7:47 PM, MJ12 said: What pinch of realism? Self-harm from launchers, in fact, is more unrealistic than a lack of self-harm. Tenno are hardened, shock-resistant cyborgs who can hit the ground at terminal velocity for humans and get up no worse for wear, have skeletal structures strong enough to stay intact while wielding massive melee weapons and hitting hard objects with them without snapping their wrists, have multiple-redundant organs and hard dermal armor ("sword-steel"), and many of them have significant additional armor that makes them heavily resistant to almost all enemy weapons. This would realistically make them virtually immune to non-directional explosives designed for antipersonnel work. Explosives are absolute crap against hard targets without using directional detonations (explosively formed penetrators or HEAT rounds), and directional explosions, for obvious reasons, deal damage directionally, i.e. not behind them, i.e. not to their user. There's a reason Vietnam era flak jackets and steel helmets, which didn't provide any meaningful protection against bullets, would drastically cut down on the ability of grenades and artillery shells to injure soldiers. All Tenno basically have full-body flak jackets and possess much tougher internal systems than a normal human, and therefore should shrug off non-impact explosives extremely well. Furthermore, realistically, modern launchers have minimum arming distances that significantly exceed their kill radii. The M203's minimum arming range is 15 to 30 meters away from the launcher, with a kill radius of 5 meters. A Javelin ATGM requires a minimum arming distance of ~50 meters. Realistically, firing a modern-tech explosive weapon too close to you shouldn't kill you, it should make the explosive weapon not explode because the munition failed to arm. And all this is ignoring that Warframe takes place in the far future where more advanced munitions fuses and munitions designs exist which would make self-damage even more 'unrealistic.' As a random example, Tenno-used launchers might be Selectively Aimable Warheads, which specifically aim their explosions at nearby enemies, rather than having omnidirectional explosions. Tenno are tough enough that the reduced blast and shockwave of said SAWs would be easily shrugged off. They might incorporate IFF systems that can selectively deactivate the weapon fuse if a friendly or noncombatant is in the kill radius. They might be given smart fuses which will only detonate them where they'll do the most good, rather than dumb fuses. Self-harm in Warframe is not actually realistic. Now, this thread is still going, quite an interesting read. 🙂 I beg to disagree with all the points. You are trying in your imagination to give frames (not Tenno) some god-like status. Alas, imho, they are very much vulnerable. Exposing this vulnerability obviously requires somewhat higher level of content. One has to put a few good mods on the Penta to blow the frame up. Frames get easily killed by enemies or environment if not played carefully or not equipped properly. So assuming that all frames are resistant to everything is kind of overstretching it a bit. The only really invincible frame is Limbo and not due to its armor or anything but due to tesseract-like dimensional mobility. Now, of course, operator is another story due to Void, which is imho nice but a pure space fiction mumbo-jumbo. Following your example, if a soldier in a flak jacket throws down an armed explosive at the feet, it will do some serious harm regardless of the jacket. Directional explosives is a possibility though. IDK if developers aim to implement something like that. It will reduce limited usefulness of the explosives however but it is an option. Current blast damage has an unconditional fixed 5 meter radius though, so hard to tell. Again, does not seem like reality although it is an option imo. With regard to distance argument, one has to realize the limitation of a game world and its implementation. Of course, very few people do throw grenades at their feet and are blown up in the process. Although, accidents happen. For example, about 10% US military deaths are due to self-inflicted injuries. Add another 10% for accidents. Some of those may be explosive-related, IDK how many, the reports don't say the numbers, apparently these are classified or whatever. See something like this : https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf Now, if you have a modern launcher which arms itself within 50 meters of the launch location after 5 seconds and is directional then, assuming movement speed of a frame, the launching frame runs forward to engage the hostiles. The frame will arrive at the potential injury zone in 2-3 seconds and will get hurt unless the explosion is cancelled. And yes, strictly speaking, blast in reality does have an obvious impact component. IDK about an atmosphere-free environment, it might somewhat reduce the component. With regard to what may or may not be, it has nothing to do with reality. For all we know, mankind is 2 minutes on the Doomsday clock. Or we can pick slow annihilation mode and get all spitroasted if global warming starts hammering down in a few decades. So, future reality and possibilities are not a reality. Reality is now and here by definition. There are attempts at realistic nanobot/minibot like damages in the game like maggots, flies, spores, etc. They can tell friend from foe but simple chemicals cannot do that regardless of how sophisticated they can possibly be made as of this moment. Which is obviously the case with most explosives in WF. Edited June 14, 2019 by akots Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MJ12 Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 7 minutes ago, akots said: Now, this thread is still going, quite an interesting read. 🙂 I beg to disagree with all the points. You are trying in your imagination to give frames (not Tenno) some god-like status. Alas, imho, they are very much vulnerable. Exposing this vulnerability obviously requires somewhat higher level of content. One has to put a few good mods on the Penta to blow the frame up. Frames get easily killed by enemies or environment if not played carefully or not equipped properly. So assuming that all frames are resistant to everything is kind of overstretching it a bit. The only really invincible frame is Limbo and not due to its armor or anything but due to tesseract-like dimensional mobility. Now, of course, operator is another story due to Void, which is imho nice but a pure space fiction mumbo-jumbo. Have you seen the trailers for Warframe? In exactly zero trailers is a Warframe ever shown to be even remotely threatened by non-boss enemies. Saying "frames get easily killed by enemies or environment if not played carefully or not equipped properly" is not actually true given that the trailers (which are what DE wants to show people the game is like) show Warframes basically annihilating entire hordes of enemies, taking extremely aggressive action, with little to no thought given to their own survival. It's an appeal to gameplay, which ignores that for the purposes of making a fun game, things in gameplay might be much stronger or weaker than they actually are in the lore. And my core point is that not only is self-damage not particularly fun gameplay, appeals to realism don't actually support self-damage because they are based off of complete ignorance about the physics of actual explosions and what actual explosive munitions are like. 7 minutes ago, akots said: Following your example, if a soldier in a flak jacket throws down an armed explosive at the feet, it will do some serious harm regardless of the jacket. Directional explosives is a possibility though. IDK if developers aim to implement something like that. It will reduce limited usefulness of the explosives however but it is an option. Current blast damage has an unconditional fixed 5 meter radius though, so hard to tell. Again, does not seem like reality although it is an option imo. If a soldier throws an armed explosive down at their feet, they might be killed because their armor only covers their chest and part of their head. More advanced versions of modern body armor will not be penetrated by a hand grenade even if you literally jump right on top of it. That may not be survivable for a human with bones that break easily and soft flesh, but Warframes have full-coverage armored skin, interlinked organs of absurd resilience, and additional defensive layers even beyond that like their shields. So a Tenno is better compared to a man in a bomb blast suit, and a bomb blast suit will protect, at point-blank range, against explosives far larger than a 40mm grenade. And the developers could implement directional explosives immediately and trivially by simply setting all explosive weapons to not deal any self-damage. That would simulate 'directional explosives' (because your explosive munitions would harm only enemies and not allies) with basically no effort spent. 7 minutes ago, akots said: With regard to distance argument, one has to realize the limitation of a game world and its implementation. Of course, very few people do throw grenades at their feet and are blown up in the process. Although, accidents happen. For example, about 10% US military deaths are due to self-inflicted injuries. Add another 10% for accidents. Some of those may be explosive-related, IDK how many, the reports don't say the numbers, apparently these are classified or whatever. See something like this : https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf It turns out that heavy machinery kills people in industrial accidents, and militaries use a lot of heavy machinery for both direct engagements and for logistics. Loading the M1 Abrams's gun slightly wrong, for example, can literally lead to a soldier inside being torn in half. And then you have the usual heavy machinery accidents like failing to set your jack right when you're maintaining a vehicle so you get crushed to death, or being crushed by your own forklift tipping over, and so on. This is what military 'accidents' typically are, not 'self-damage.' 7 minutes ago, akots said: Now, if you have a modern launcher which arms itself within 50 meters of the launch location after 5 seconds and is directional then, assuming movement speed of a frame, the launching frame runs forward to engage the hostiles. The frame will arrive at the potential injury zone in 2-3 seconds and will get hurt unless the explosion is cancelled. And yes, strictly speaking, blast in reality does have an obvious impact component. IDK about an atmosphere-free environment, it might somewhat reduce the component. "Arms itself within 50 meters of the launch location after 5 seconds" is ludicrously slow, slower than even a thrown hand grenade. The M203's muzzle velocity is an incredibly sedate 76 meters per second. It hits its arming distance in 0.2 seconds. The Javelin ATGM's velocity is 205 meters per second. Oh yeah, and realistically the missile would also inherit the launcher's velocity, so the Warframe literally couldn't arrive 'at the potential injury zone' and 'get hurt' before the missile detonates. 7 minutes ago, akots said: With regard to what may or may not be, it has nothing to do with reality. For all we know, mankind is 2 minutes on the Doomsday clock. Or we can pick slow annihilation mode and get all spitroasted if global warming starts hammering down in a few decades. So, future reality and possibilities are not a reality. Reality is now and here by definition. There are attempts at realistic nanobot/minibot like damages in the game like maggots, flies, spores, etc. They can tell friend from foe but simple chemicals cannot do that regardless of how sophisticated they can possibly be made as of this moment. Which is obviously the case with most explosives in WF. Your argument basically sums up to "assuming that Warframe launchers cannot tell friend from foe because they're 'simple chemicals,' they cannot tell friend from foe because they're 'simple chemicals.'" In fact, given that if Warframe launchers were truly 'simple chemicals' they would have extremely unpredictable characteristics (like real-world explosives), the argument can just as easily be that they're obviously not simple chemicals. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)ForNoPurpose Posted June 14, 2019 Share Posted June 14, 2019 (edited) 7 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said: -snip because holy mother of lotus its like someone is trying to earn a doctorate_ your Quote Fu is strong. at this point i have no idea what this topic is even about. Edited June 14, 2019 by (PS4)ForNoPurpose 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)CertainLeader6 Posted June 15, 2019 Share Posted June 15, 2019 13 hours ago, (PS4)ForNoPurpose said: your Quote Fu is strong. at this point i have no idea what this topic is even about. Neither do I. It might be about weapons when used wrong become suicidal because your a clueless gamer thinking the paris is good for frontal assault? IDK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teridax68 Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Tried, yes. Succeeded? Eh, not much, but you've deliberately opened it up even more in response, to the point where I think you're trying to make an argument by verbosity. Granted, I can be accused of the same, but at least I identified it as an issue and made an attempt to group some things back in. ... except I never expressed any problem with the length of these replies, much less promised to shorten them. I have, therefore, been acting consistently with my stated intent, and while it is not my intention to make an argument by verbosity, it is certainly my intent to answer you thoroughly, including on the many tangents you have gone into, e.g. Energy restrictions, Warframe as a cover shooter, the many accusations of fallacies you have cited seemingly at random, or the very nature of reality, which you are apparently questioning in order to push forth your present agenda. You are allowed to complain about it, of course, just as you falsely accused me of avoiding your points even as I had answered every single one, but then when you simply worsen the thing you called a problem, you obviously come across as a tad hypocritical. The fact that you would attempt to excuse yourself by instead trying to displace the fault onto me is in fact the very same "tu quoque" fallacy you have repeatedly (and incorrectly) brought up in this argument. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: This is an ignorance response. 'Reality' by your assertion alone. No, "reality" as in there is this video game that exists, that clearly runs by certain rules, where the playerbase clearly does certain things and not others, majoritarily voices certain opinions and not others, and prefers certain things and not others. This may not be the video game you want to talk about, but it is the one nonetheless being discussed. Thus, trying to pretend that this video game is something completely other than what it actually is, and hiding behind the distance created by these forums to pretend that its very existence is wholly subjective, is delusional at best, and dishonest at worst. Warframe is not a game where explosives are popular, and so directly because of self-damage, as cited by a great many players. If you are unable to even admit this basic fact, then your position is not worthy of consideration, as you are arguing against reality. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Yet I who do not use Energy Restores except usually by accident (because I have them on the wheel just in case some exception comes along) seem to have millions of Nano Spores where other people run out.. and when asked how, usually cite restores. There's still an obligation there to address the issue, if it were removed then you'd not need Restores, your Zenurik focus would be unnecessary in favour of some other utility, and you'd get back Arcane slots for other utility. The undesirable outcome exists not removed. And others who do use restores seemingly have few to no problems, and the ever-increasing prevalence of Arcane Energize means there are even fewer constraints for many. The consequences of removing Energy are completely irrelevant to a point that is already irrelevant to the subject matter: Energy is so easy to have past a threshold that it can be argued that Energy as a resource ceases to truly matter at that stage. Thus, going back to the original point, it is plain to see that DE does make an effort to cater to player desires, even when there are problematic long-term consequences, something I believe is the case for Energy, but wouldn't be for explosive self-damage, for reasons stated already. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: 2 points of subjectivity, 1 point of inaccurate subjective judgement, and one complete statement of non-argumentative supposition. Failed. I addressed the first three and the fourth isn't even an argument in support, it's just speculating the claim itself. ... which ones? Where? You have this odd habit of claiming that you've already addressed arguments made, but appear utterly incapable of proving it, or even assigning specific criticism to specific arguments, as is the case here (how exactly are you expecting me to guess which of the arguments are "points of subjectivity", "inaccurate subjective judgement", or "one complete statement of non-argumentative supposition"?). Where have you addressed any of these arguments, let alone all of them? Until you actually provide a counter-argument to these points, you don't get to dismiss them out of hand without fatally undermining your credibility. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: There is no proof the fundamental implementation of self damage does not work by virtue of anything but your own opinion, but every argument against is flagrantly ignored/dismissed. It's entirely arguable that the fundamental idea of self-damage - instant risk to self upon failure, scaling with the potential reward - can work if rebalanced statistically. But this is false, as yet again proven by the above: random weapon spread exists, multishot exists, and it is a known fact that we move fast and that the scenery is complex; therefore, it is equally obvious that we cannot perfectly predict where every single one of our projectiles will land, particularly when you also factor in projectile arcs and the like. Thus, basing a mode of self-damage that presumes all of this in order to enact punishment for failing in one's perfect prediction is fundamentally flawed by design. Dismissing this as "subjective" only further underlines how little relevance your argumentation has to do with basic facts and evidence, along with a fundamental misunderstanding of what subjective topics are. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: It adds to the game because it's a distinctive different challenge and playstyle posed to the user. Some people enjoy the risk. Some laugh about blowing themselves up (whether or not they think it's their fault, but especially when they do acknowledge this). Why are those players forced to change to suit you when alternatives to that playstyle exist for your purposes? And there is at least one documented example of a person enjoying sticking their finger between their eye and their eye socket, that does not mean the act can itself be generally described as pleasant or healthy. Similarly, the existence of some hypothetical people who enjoy a piece of bad design does not automatically make that design good, especially because that much can be said for literally anything (some people liked Nervos, for example). There is no "distinctive different challenge and playstyle" to be created by a mode of punishment that punishes the player for factors other than misplays, and as already explained, there are far better alternative designs that generate the exact same gameplay (e.g. the Lenz, the Corinth's minimum range, and so on). Thus, the reality of the matter is that you are advocating for the one mode of design that does not actually present the gameplay you are hiding behind as an excuse to preserve it, and blindly rejecting all provably better alternatives, even in the face of near-universal dislike of your own design. There is thus no reason to force every player in the game to be given the unsavory choice of not using a cool-looking weapon, or suffering its poor design, just because one person on the forums insisted that they liked it (even though you demonstrably do not as much as you claim to). On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Explanation flawed: fallacy remains. ... but how can that be the case when I explained precisely that there was in fact no fallacy, and that you were just making crap up? You are yourself committing a fallacy by arguing from repetition, without even caring to explain yourself here: how exactly do you expect to convince anyone here that my response somehow didn't address the issue? It's like you're trying to convince yourself more than anyone else at this stage. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Let me fix that quote: "Some people are not having a good time while using these weapons." Not all, and those people aren't being disallowed, it's just their opinion and interpretation of the results. As I've said, that's fine, just don't use them then? You're still demanding change to personally suit you where it's unnecessary. But your own stated liking of that design is your own opinion, and an extremely minoritary one at that, so if self-damage on those weapons gets removed or changed, why can't you just deal with it? What makes you more important than anyone else? Because it is you here demanding that the near-totality of players deal with poor weapon design just because you've decided to plant your little imaginary stake on the forums and declare that no-one can change self-damage, simply because you said so. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Let me give you the inverse: Ivara's my primarily used frame and I spend a hell of a lot of argument on saying why she's currently a horrible experience in comparison to others. She simply functions in spite of that. I may not have the majority of usage time on explosives, but that doesn't mean I have no experience and doesn't mean I can't assess their use. Have you considered that the stats are padded out by all manner of things including time literally spent holding weapons without even using them? 9000 hours of 0-kill Spy missions would still be 9000 hours of playtime with whatever happened to be equipped at the time, despite 0 kills and affinity earned. ... but all of this is completely irrelevant to the point: you could still be holding a Kulstar without using it, but even that much you chose not to do. Moreover, you've repeatedly insisted that your enjoyment of explosive weapons is important enough that no-one else should get to touch them, yet even in the worst-case scenario where you'd stop playing explosive weapons if their self-damage got removed, that wouldn't even take up 10% of your total weapon usage. Not only is your stated opinion on explosive weapons heavily biased, it is entirely exaggerated, as you clearly don't use explosives nearly as much as you'd like to convince anyone. In other words, it feels like you're arguing in defense of explosive self-damage more for argument's sake than out of some true attachment or liking for the weapon class, in spite of the fact that your argument heavily relies upon the latter. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Frankly, if I can use the Kulstar and not blow myself up with even less predictable cluster payloads then what does that say about you who seem incapable of controlling a singular payload? Or, alternatively, your self-declared expertise with the Kulstar is itself entirely fabricated, just like your overinflated stated experience with explosives as a weapon class. Moreover, I myself expressed no real comment on my own skill with explosives, so you attempting to lord over your alleged superior skill over me comes across as a tad hollow and desperate: more importantly still, though, it perfectly illustrates the elitism you've been criticized with throughout this thread. You're visibly not here to make a real argument, you're here because you want to act like you're better than someone, anyone, which is also why you force yourself to go through these protracted replies in spite of your stated dislike of them, simply out of a frantic need to save face, which you've irreparably lost long ago on this thread. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: 'Fun' is a finite resource. A player is only playing/enjoying so many things for so much time. 1 hour of gameplay spreads evenly across loadouts used in that time. If sufficient arsenal variety exists, no net 'fun time' is lost by a player opting to use any given weapon over another. Except players don't simply play the entire game for 1 hour and stop, so your argument makes strictly no sense. Fun is not a limited resource, and despite the immense amount of time players put into Warframe, there inevitably comes a time to try something new, which is why variety is emphasized so much in the game's selection of weapons and warframes. Even if fun were indeed finite and constricted, that would still not be a reason to make an entire class of weapons flat-out unfun for the vast majority of players. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You have 2 viable choices. Gameplay investment is divided over a diversity of 2 items. You have 300 viable choices and 10 inviable choices. Gameplay investment is divided over a diversity of 300 items. Point B is clearly more healthy than point A. ... but still not ideal compared to point C, where all 310 choices were to be viable, which is the actual subject of the discussion. You are clearly trying to shift the goalposts here, and for all the spin you're putting on here, it's clear that you are prepared to make an entire class of weapons unviable, simply because you want them for yourself. This is not a reasonable position to take when arguing for something in front of a wider community, by the way, and is all the more hypocritical when you accuse the opposing majority of selfishness simply because most players would like to play explosive weapons without randomly blowing themselves up. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Simulor effect range was, if memory serves, ~12m radial blast. Simulor firing range was, due to projectile behaviour, ~10m from point of fire (less due to gravitating of projectiles which could pull back for the initial combination) You cannot simply put self-damage on that because the basic operation shoots with you in the threat zone. The wiki says the explosion range is 8m and the firing range is 12m, with patch notes indicating no change, so I'm not sure where you pulled those numbers from. Even if the firing range were shorter than the explosion range, that in itself could have been fixed with the implementation of self-damage, yet neither happened, soooo... On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The Tonkor bouncing back at you is a failure to execute. It shoots projectiles further than the 6m effect radius, you just shot a wall that caused it to reflect back. But how is it the player's fault when they will be typically firing a spread of multiple projectiles that can all bounce off of anything at unpredictable angles? You are repeatedly blaming the player here for getting punished in ways one simply cannot reliably play around, not even with perfect play. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: This aids in creating distance between player and intended target. ... except the player does not move backwards through missions, which encourage the player to move towards objectives, and towards places where there are more enemies. One certainly can create distance, but this also requires a layout that enables this (i.e. enough open space), which is not a given in many of Warframe's tilesets. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The player is not forced to use the weapon that does not work well in enclosed spaces (having a complete loadout except by selection) and most of these 'tight spaces' are still greater than the radius of payloads "If you don't like it, don't use it" is a shoddy excuse that serves to dismiss poor design instead of addressing it. In the end, the fact remains that most of Warframe's spaces don't work well with explosives (and just because spaces are only slightly greater than explosive payloads does not contradict this), and this is one of the many reasons why explosives are typically not picked. Players are already taking your advice, and that is precisely why the weapon class is currently in the gutter. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The player does not need to 'thread the needle' and doing so implies a risk that the firing angle may be just off and hit the object. Also, simply place yourself >6m away from dubious-hitbox object. You are yet again intentionally missing the point: the problem isn't simply with the firing angle, but with the weapon's spread, which has a literal random element and thus cannot be perfectly predicted. Moreover, the very point being made is that level geometry is deceptive, and thus cannot be pre-emptively recognized as "dubious". You are effectively here asking the player to constantly do detective work to recognize which level geometry is "dubious", using some hypothetical ESP spidey sense, and then constantly withhold shooting whenever that sort of geometry is present. Do you not think these demands are all a tad excessive when most guns without self-damage just demand the player point and click to work properly? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: A non-argument as mistake is made by the point of explosion, as explosives are generally fairly similar in size. Explosives are fairly similar in size... but that size is not well-conveyed, which is the point being made. You are yet again trying to shift the goalposts in an attempt to avoid addressing an uncomfortable point. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The parked car ran out and hit me, officer, I swear. You controlled your vector of motion and by extension, any vector of scenery 'approaching'. But the player's "controlled vector of motion" is not the problem here, the complex scenery and its sometimes-deceptive collision surface is. Even if the scenery's hitbox perfectly matched up to its visuals, it would not stop the fact that the relative scenery around the player changes extremely rapidly, far more than in a game without parkour or any kind of speed to the player's movement. Pretending that the player can thus perfectly predict everything in the game simply because their own motion is not utterly random is thus itself a ridiculous notion, one that only gets made when far, far away from the actual game. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Me: I don't blow myself up on scenery by accident. You: Well most players "can't" achieve that and do blow themselves up by accident. 2+2 = I am performing above average players and cannot be considered a representative sample. That's not elitism. That is, though, because you are ultimately using your self-professed l33t sk177z as the measuring stick by which you are declaring every other player inferior, as noted above when you tried to use that same tactic against me. You are repeatedly saying that players deserve to get punished by explosive self-damage at all times because you're so much better than them, or so you say (and, considering the overall level of honesty in your rhetoric, and the contrary evidence at hand, I'd say that much is dubious as well). Moreover, the "accidents" being mentioned here are specifically being said to be out of the player's own control: thus, claiming to be exceptionally skilled because those random events don't happened to you suggests you misunderstand what skill actually represents, and are more interested in looking for excuses to call yourself exceptionally skilled than you are in actually encouraging more skill expression in-game. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I don't actually think I am above other players, I think anyone who enjoys the weapons enough to do so could develop equal or greater finesse. You're the one claiming they can't as the basis of your argument. Where did I do so? I never disputed the fact that players can develop mastery of explosive weapons, and blow themselves up less; I am pointing out that even at a high degree of mastery, there is inevitably some risk of incurring self-damage, because perfect skill alone does not cover against all possible instances of self-damage that can occur. Moreover, expecting players to have some hypothetical perfect degree of skill just for a weapon to stop being unfun is not a position I would consider reasonable. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Will you quit with this waffling ad-hominem? For the fifty thousandth time, players don't have to find self-damage fun for themselves, but that doesn't mean nobody finds it fun. Players don't have to go to the trouble of learning launcher finesse if they do not wish to, as other weapons are available. Sputtering out the same debunked straw man over and over again (or, as you put it, "for the fifty thousandth time") is not going to make you any less unconvincing on the matter. I'm not saying literally all players find explosive self-damage unfun, nor does my argument rely on this presumption, I'm just pointing out that the people who do so are obviously a tiny minority in the face of people who dislike it, and many of them seem to be exaggerating their self-professed love significantly for the sake of an internet argument. You are not entitled to blocking out part of a massively multiplayer game from all of these people simply because you personally refuse to have something change. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Just use the other weapons if you hate self-damage so badly, you are not 'entitled' to have everything changed to suit you. Nor are you entitled for the game to freeze in its tracks and retain poorly designed features just because you personally say so, against a large majority of players who want change. If you're so attached to self-damage, just play any of the other video games that offer that. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You say 'backpedaling', I say 'something I was already talking about before you were summoned to this thread'. You can call it whatever you so wish, the fact remains that you are presently admitting to a fact that defeats your own position, which I had pointed out already, in spite of your own denial, itself featured in the rest of your arguments here. If you yourself admit that not all self-damage is the result of a misplay, why insist that it is? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I do refuse to acknowledge the remaining "fact", because it's not a fact, it's an opinion from anecdotal experience. I'm sorry, random weapon spread, multishot, and Warframe's actual tilesets are "anecdotal experience" now? Are you sure you're using literally any of the argumentative terms you've cited here correctly? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Also can I get your parkour mods that physically warp level geometry? They sound rad af. Um, what? I said the level's topology changes rapidly relative to the player, not that the tile's layout itself morphs. You do know how relative motion works, right? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You called it a cover shooter. I called it a shooter, with cover that can be used situationally. One of us is making a claim of predominance the other is not (hint: it's you). And here you are arguing on semantics: call it whatever you like; Warframe is not a game that encourages cover shooting, and simply because you get to position vertical bits of scenery between yourself and enemies does not mean it has a cover system, or that doing so is even particularly productive in this game, much less part of its intended design. Once again, you are also trying to move the goalposts on this particular point, as you were originally trying to claim that at least some part of the game encouraged "stationary, cover-based approaches" (your exact words) in an attempt to pretend that Warframe ever pushed the player to be stationary. It patently does not, particularly as even here you've been forced to dilute the meaning of "cover" (and, by extension, "cover-based approaches") so much as to mean nothing, certainly not the stationary gameplay you were pretending exists in Warframe. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You don't have to sit behind that pillar for an hour, you can literally take that cover for half a second to make the rocket discharge, or the Ballista to miss the shot, then move out to deal with them. That's still usage of cover. Since you seem to love NTS, I should probably turn it on you here except more accurately. Are you telling me no true Warframe player takes cover behind scenery? ... but I'm not? You're literally fabricating a No True Scotsman on the spot then accusing me of it, an approach most would describe as unhinged. As mentioned above, you have backtracked so much on your original statement of "cover-based approaches" that you're apparently using that to describe simply flitting by any vertical piece of scenery while in combat. By your own implicit admission, Warframe isn't a game that encourages the "stationary, cover-based approaches" you once claimed. You are wrong, plain and simple. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Funny story: If you're exposed (read: have no cover from line of sight) to a ranged enemy, that enemy is disinclined to move towards your location. You break line of sight, funnelling them through a chokepoint. Stop the presses, this squad utilised a form of cover against opposition(!) ... but if there is only one way for the enemy to approach you, they will go through the chokepoint regardless, so you're not using cover against opposition, you're just funnelling enemies into a single path (which would make them inclined to move towards your position, as is the enemy's core behavior in Survival). Not only are you transparently grasping at straws here, you're not even making any sense. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The analogy works because in both cases the object was static and you are the one moving. It's your responsibility. The 'parked car' equivalent just highlights how much you sound like a mind-addled drunkard by saying the scenery is rushing you. ... but it doesn't, because the inherent presumption with walking into a parked car is that the action is so simple as to be easily avoidable. Parkouring into complex sci-fi scenery isn't so simple, demonstrated by the fact that parkour is itself a skill the game uses to challenge the player. Thus, pointing out that your analogy is crap doesn't make me "a mind-addled drunkard", but you blatantly failing to understand the concept of frames of reference and relative motion certainly indicates just how out of your depth you are in this discussion on parkour and explosives. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Oh but it was incredibly well liked. We had to go through >50 pages of this exact sort of point-for-point diatribe from the people defending their precious Tonka toy. Along with all those superficial "lol just don't use it" comments - which again, is completely inapplicable in the case of obligation to use few, versus a disinclination to use few. This is yet again a transparent bit of grasping at straws, as you are trying to frame the people defending the Tonkor against the addition of self damage as people who genuinely wanted the Tonkor to be the absolute most dominant weapon in the game, which is evidenced... where, exactly? I was absolutely part of that group defending the Tonkor against self-damage, too, but you'd be hard-pressed to find me opposing any request to nerf that weapon whatsoever at the time. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Just because something is disliked, doesn't mean it ought to be changed to suit the ones who dislike it. See, I can do it too. If it is disliked by a majority of players who repeatedly cite why, then it is in fact a good reason. You inventing situations that did not exist doesn't really detract from this. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Oh look you're ignoring again. DE is disinclined to solely buff damage output because people are complaining about the input. If you gave the Ogris more damage, what would you get? "lol you still kill yourself with cautious even harder now". ... but, as I already pointed out in the point you have been ignoring, if it already happens now, the amount of overkill damage is irrelevant. You are the one ignoring arguments here, and so in favor of pushing inane, conjectural claims that fall apart at the slightest inspection. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: So unless you either stop complaining (accept fatal risk into your life) in which it doesn't matter how much damage they add, or accept rebalance so that we have a foundation that works better for you and scales better, DE won't be increasing the damage output. ... which is itself a false dichotomy, as asking to remove self-damage is an equally valid option. Once again, you find yourself announcing the logical fallacy you subsequently commit. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Because removing self-damage means you also don't get 'bombastic' output, because nobody wants the Tonkor meta back. ... why not? Again, you keep dragging the specter of the Tonkor meta, in complete and deliberate ignorance of what actually caused it, and what other balancing factors could be used to keep that meta from happening again (e.g. slow firing and reload speeds, which is the main reason why people don't use the Tonkor as much now). The Opticor, for example, is a perfect example of a famously bombastic weapon, with notable damage output per shot, that isn't universally picked simply because it's a slow weapon (which even applies to its faster Vandal variant), not because it deals self-damage. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You say you can't do it, you refuse to believe it possible for players to do it, and that's all you have to counter my assertion - which is argued because you have superior mobility and a set of eyes with a brain. Actually, I argued that it's because our weapons typically fire a randomly-influenced spread of multiple projectiles in an environment filled with unexpected places for them to collide, responses you acknowledged already above, but let's not let small things like facts and reality get in the way of your argumentation. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I know it to be possible, because I do it. But that's anecdotal, so instead I say it's generally possible because you have the necessary information fed into your eyeballs (minus the exceptions that prove the rule) to employ that control required. But as I proved, you don't, and even perfect information is not enough in itself, as you are implying the human mind is itself perfect, which would itself defeat your entire point on self-damage as a punishment mechanic. You can lie as much as you want about your own personal experience to try to win this argument, it's not really going to convince anyone, particularly when you yourself point out you are trying to argue from anecdotal evidence (in which case, why even mention it in the first place?). On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I'm not dismissing your point. I'm refuting it. Refuting it where? You literally just lied by trying to pretend I did not make arguments that you yourself acknowledged in the same post. You are blatantly trying to dismiss the point. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The conveyance of the punishment mechanic is fine. You shoot the boom near you, you get hurt as well. That's all it needs to convey. When you pick up the weapon you don't kill yourself. Getting a couple ranks in it teaches you all the vanishingly small details of 'radius' (it's simply not that big, we aren't nuking tiles wholesale) and there you go. You know what you have and what is expected. But this is clearly false, as the Lenz was explicitly designed to have a more visible explosion radius (among other mechanics designed to "fix" self-damage), and has been praised on that point specifically as well. The conveyance of the punishment mechanic clearly is not fine, and to state as much is to dismiss the feedback of a great deal many players pointing out how self-damage often feels unexpected. Again, you yourself admitted it was not fine by indicating that players could only gather information on its radius indirectly through enemy health bars, so what you're saying here clearly isn't making sense with what you've been saying just before. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You shot a wall. The wall didn't jump out in front of you. You shot a wall. You made a mistake. You are acting as if this hypothetical player was standing in front of a sheer wall, fired an explosive, and somehow didn't anticipate what would happen. In practice, it typically comes from any of the multiple projectiles bouncing off a railing, or at an angle from some bit of scenery, in a direction the player did not, and could not accurately predict. The fact that you are relying on such an obvious straw man to justify the debunked point you are continuing to repeat I think says everything there needs to be said about the validity of your argument. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You made a mistake. You failed. You're given the grace to recover from failure. That's a luxury. Because you made the mistake. You're acting as if the Lenz's delay is some benevolent and merciful gift bequeathed upon the undeserving masses by... someone (hence presumably the usage of the term "luxury"), when in practice it is a method of self-damage players consider acceptable, because unlike normal self-damage it generates actual gameplay. Not only is your central argument here a mere hollow repetition of what you've said before (which got addressed already), the tone with which you are conveying it is unwarrantedly snooty (some might even say elitist). On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Jesus christ, if you're going to accuse me of an ad-hominem, at least go a paragraph afterwards without using one yourself! Tu quoque, mi fili. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I mean, I've already refuted said accusations anyway, but you go right ahead and self-sabotage. You've refuted... what, exactly? At this point you're not even arguing anything, you're just referring back to things you've claimed to have said... somewhere. Where did you answer the question of your own entitlement? Where did you answer the point on self-damage not being worth keeping in Warframe even if its only instances were incurred by mistakes in play? Use the quote button. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Going from, say, 'pause combo' to 'alternate button combo' is not removing the fundamental mechanic. You just access the variants slightly differently (attack speed messes up pauses but does not impact alt-presses the same way). You might still be hasty and mash buttons, messing the combo up when you should be pressing a particular sequence, you might still whiff the same 'payoff' steps of the chain. ... but it is removing the fundamental mechanic of pausing the combo, as you yourself mentioned, because that very specific feature is known to not work. Nobody argued that comboes are fundamentally bad by design, people simply complained that combo inputs as they currently existed were needlessly fiddly, and that some of them were in fact fundamentally poorly designed in contradiction with the game's movement system (sounds awfully familiar...). DE is reworking comboes as a whole, but is doing so by removing entire input types as part of the process. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Going from 'instant forfeit, scaling self-damage' to 'no damage' (or capped damage, smart-arming, et al) is fundamentally changing that. Capped damage will never kill you. Smart arming may never hurt you when a mistake is made. ... but then by your current logic, capping/nerfing the damage would be equally invalid simply because it would be "fundamentally changing" self-damage as it operates. Are you for or against fundamentally changing self-damage, in the end? If so or not, why? Because up until now you were pushing your thread under the argument that it was only a rebalance, but now you've just accidentally lumped it in as a fundamental design change, even as you use that as an excuse to oppose my own proposed change. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Actually, at best it'd be 'fallacy fallacy'. Which is kind of the point - you don't actually appear to understand them. If you're going to cite them, please get them right. It's an interesting mechanism you're revealing here -- parroting back my criticism at me, without even trying to justify yourself, while continuing to throw out random fallacy names out of all context, and with similarly scant explanation. Who exactly are you trying to convince here? Are you even trying to convince anyone, or can you literally just not stop yourself from doing any of this nonsense? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Please cease wilful ignorance. No, you cease referring to points you've never made. You visibly have become so tired with this argument that you're not even bothering to write anything substantial, despite your need to appear like you're responding, so you just keep pointing somewhere else towards points you've apparently made... wherever, even though you visibly haven't. Either answer the point, or refer to the point you've made, because here you just look like you're giving up. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You don't understand fallacies. Stop. Natural stealth or in other words, aided versus unaided. Inaros has huge natural tank, unaided health pool, where Trinity has aided tank through a couple stacking damage resistance buffs. Assimilate Nyx removes all self-damage from the equation. Your entire problem is therefore 'solved' if you're going to allow specific builds as arguments. So first off, Nyx doesn't remove "all self-damage from the equation"; her Absorb drains based on damage absorbed, meaning self-damage does have an impact. Second, you've failed to answer the question: what is it about Nyx and self-damage that disproves what I've said? What is the actual argument you are trying to make? Third: what does "natural stealth" have anything to do with what's been argued? You are yet again speaking utter gibberish, and the very fact that you're trying to establish some silly dichotomy between "natural" and "aided" whatever so that only one counts as valid is a No True Scotsman and false dichotomy rolled into one. You have been proven to not understand fallacies, and I have brought up literal definitions, as well as clear explanations, to this effect, so blankly parroting that criticism back at me is just foolish. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Let me break it down real simple like: 1+1+1+1... and 2+2+2+2... are correlating sequences. They are not absolutely equivalent, but they follow the same general trend (n*X). What👏does👏absolutely👏equivalent👏mean👏? But honestly, though, use your own words, because if in the end the only thing you're trying to say is "they're not the literal same"... why make up some pretentious expression to disguise that? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Self-damage explosives and Hildryn without shields are both correlating - they result in a greater-than-average risk of death. They are not equivalent, because Shieldless Hildy is a lot more of a burden than Explosives are. In both cases players can operate skilfully enough to subvert the risks and enjoy fun and satisfaction of doing so. But that correlation is far too abstract, as the mechanism and player decision by which they being about a greater-than-average risk of death is completely different. In one case, the player is deliberately choosing to make life more difficult for themselves, in the other the player isn't, or at least not usually, they just want to use that weapon as a weapon (and against enemies, not themselves). The only assumption by which your absurd comparison makes any sense is the equally absurd notion that picking an explosive weapon is a deliberate act of self-sabotage. Moreover, your comparison does not support the conclusion you are making, which is itself a mere repetition of the denial you've been exerting this entire time (no, players cannot completely subvert the risks inherent in self-damage, and most players demonstrably do not in fact enjoy using explosives). Once again, you've gone into a tangent that is as irrational as it is pointless. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I am this-close to just memeposting for how dumb this sounds. Let's call in that old 'git gudness' of Dark Souls, right? Vanishingly few people become skilled enough (enjoy getting there) to read every tell and execute flawlessly, defeating bosses without taking a single lick of damage consistently, right? They make mistakes. But those mistakes ARE STILL MISTAKES! It isn't that "I never blow myself up". I never blow myself up unless I made a mistake. ... but as explained literally right above your reply with the mention of random spread, multishot, etc., not all factors are within the player's control, so not all instances of player self-damage are mistakes. Moreover, your own reasoning here defeats your own point: if virtually all players are bound to make mistakes, why impose upon everyone the expectation of perfect play, when even those "mistakes" are not seen as justification enough for self damage? Your argumentation is falling apart completely here: not only are you desperately repeating the same point over and over, in blatant ignorance of the points you're pretending to respond to, the few times you say something new to try to justify yourself, you only end up further torpedoing your position. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Here's one of those direct "NO U" quotes you wanted so much. ... because it actually applies. Again, you seem more interested in the letter of the argument than the actual substance: I pointed out that my argument did in fact have something to say, so you were simply flat-out lying in an attempt to avoid answering a point, but on top of that you have this almost comical tendency to throw accusations my way immediately before, during or after you show yourself guilty of those selfsame accusations. It's some of the most blatant projection I've seen to date. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Fishing is against Warframe's core design. We have it. Some people like it, most likely don't care for it. Get rid, yeah? Oh wait no because it doesn't actually harm you. ... but DE did, technically, because now Thumpers and Exploiters exist and give players a means of obtaining fishing and mining resources without engaging with the minigames at all. Moreover, the players who dislike fishing and mining didn't do so because they liked the idea of both and got disappointed by the mechanics, they just didn't find the idea itself appealing in the first place (and the mechanic is specifically designed as a side activity, not forced into regular gameplay as if it were a part of its core design). Meanwhile, players who dislike launchers don't do so because they dislike explosives as a design, quite the opposite: most player accounts given are that explosives as a concept are really appealing, but the self-damage is a major turnoff. Thus, it would make sense to remove it, so that people can actually enjoy explosives. Once again, the comparison you have drawn is utterly inane and transparently shallow, to the point where one wonders how you expected anyone else to take your side on the matter through this. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Again you employ this "OBVIOUSLY I'M RIGHT" perspective while accusing me of the same. Because I have employed actual propositional logic, whereas you've deliberately tried to muddy any reference to logic or facts in order to substitute your own alternate reality where self-damage is well-designed and universally popular. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You have still yet to disprove my rebuttals to 1.3 with anything beyond vague waffle and personal opinion. Your rebuttals... where? Your own "responses" on the matter have been outright denial and conspicuous ignorance: where exactly have you countered the existence of random spread, or multishot? How exactly does one even go about doing that when those are indisputable facts that directly disprove your central assumption of perfect reliability and control? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: For the second list entirely, your conclusion is flawed. If the mechanic exists already and if the mechanic does not ACTIVELY work to the detriment of those who do not find it fun, then there is no obligation to change it. You say it 'denies fun' but as previously observed, this is not a founded claim as there is no obligation to engage with the unwanted mechanic. You're not being denied anything in the Primary slot of your loadout for not liking launchers, you just fill it with something else. But the mechanic does actively work to the detriment of those who do not find it fun, as evidenced by the myriad of players complaining about it. Moreover, what justification do you even have for your own statement here? I did not here say the mechanic "denies fun" (though it does), I stated it a) is largely considered unfun (which is verifiable via any discussion surrounding self-damage, and the overall usage of explosives), b) does not support any fun mechanic (it doesn't, and you've produced no answer to this), and c) does not contribute to the game's artistic intent (there is nothing about explosive self-damage that furthers Warframe's existence as art). Thus, my claims in proposition 2 are verifiably true, and considering how you haven't expressed any direct disagreement with the first proposition, the conclusion is thus also true. Even when faced with simple propositional logic, you still attempt to resort to denial and slimy rhetorical tactics to try to weasel away from the point. You are visibly not concerned with the truth, or arguing any valid point. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: 1) You attempted to undermine me calling your arguments fallacious by saying I was pulling a fallacy. You also even misattributed the fallacy you chose. Because you were pulling a fallacy, and it was not the only criticism I made: On 2019-06-11 at 12:24 PM, Teridax68 said: This is a curious blend of conjectural optimism and the No True Scotsman fallacy, one that ignores a fact that has been pointed out multiple times already that self-damage isn't a problem purely because it's balanced wrong, but because its design fundamentally does not work in Warframe: This is me criticizing you by citing the fallacy you committed and explaining what was wrong with your argument. I also then justified the fallacy I pointed out, as this: On 2019-06-11 at 7:37 AM, TheLexiConArtist said: few but the true enthusiasts make frequent use of most launchers. Is a rather self-evident No True Scotsman. You have thus been caught lying. Notice how I quoted the relevant bit of text to prove my point here, instead of throwing vague reference to some unspecified (and, in your case, nonexistent) prior point. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: 2) Says basic understanding of logic because you can't be appealing to purity when you're observing data. It's hilarious this is the cornerstone of your rebuttal because it's one of the closest times I've been to leaning to your side of an argument, and you're so caught up you're trying to push me back over. ... precisely, an appeal to purity doesn't work when observing data, which is precisely what you're not doing when talking about "true" enthusiasts or the like. I don't care whether or not you claim to be leaning to my side of the argument, if you're doing it wrong, you should try to do it right, perhaps by realizing that your personal standards for dismissing the opinions of most of Warframe's playerbase are not objective. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: 3) See 2). I'm not saying you can't or won't, I'm saying you don't. Claims and observations. Technically my example was limited because, I suppose, you could argue that non-top athletes could enter the Olympics, they'd just fail to meet competition. I should have said "are competing" as that is more clearly observant than claimant. But you are ultimately using the argument as part of an attempted justification of why "true enthusiasts" are the only people who get to have a say in whether or not self-damage stays or goes, as noted in your many accusations of the collective entitlement of all other players (and your immediate following point here), so you are not being truthful here either. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: 4) Your feedback is that you don't like self-damage and find it difficult (or in your words 'impossible') to avoid. That is valid. Your subsequent demand is to have it changed to suit you. That is not valid feedback. So first off, it is, requesting to have a game change in a way one likes does in fact constitute valid feedback (it in fact constitutes the majority of feedback, including feedback DE takes into consideration), and you don't get to tell others that their feedback is and isn't valid simply because you feel strongly about a particular feature (or claim to, anyway, as you don't seem to care much about explosive weapons in practice). Second, this itself demonstrates that your argument is in fact a No True Scotsman, as you are using that very standard of "true enthusiasts" you invented as an excuse to invalidate everyone else's opinion. It's like you can't stop yourself from sabotaging your own defense. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You're the one originally claiming majority - I merely state that it is in fact likely due to the subdivisions that you are not in the majority for your specific solution. ... due to subdivisions you've arbitrarily invented in an attempt to divide and conquer an overwhelming majority of players who are vocally against self-damage. You are merely restating the tactic I have been criticizing, and so I fail to see how this justifies anything you've done. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: There's been a few problems over the course of failing to understand boolean logic on non-binary data. "Not positive" includes neutral as well as negative, "Not negative" also includes neutral. "Not neutral" only disincludes neutral and allows the full spectrum either side. Pretentious musings on public perception of boolean logic do nothing to disprove the fact that your own interpretation here is entirely conjectural -- you can't even be sure that there's this majority of people who explicitly want to keep self damage, you're just trying to argue that the omission of an express request to remove self-damage, even in a post harshly criticizing the mechanic, constitutes a tacit request to keep the mechanic. This is perhaps the most evident case of you grasping at straws. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: As we have no real statistical data on something as fickle and fleeting as opinions, we can only draw supposition from the groupings in play. In effect, you have absolutely no justification or solid evidence whatsoever for your conjecture, making your entire argument here worthless. Glad to hear it! On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Go back to your original summoning portal to the thread. By which I mean where you were quoted. I immediately rebuked. No. Get the actual quote, as it is evident you are lying. Your only "rebuttal" to my original post was this: On 2019-06-08 at 5:30 AM, TheLexiConArtist said: (Emphasis mine)Hardly objective. That is a lot of arguably-objective observations about the game, but judging them as 'why self damage is bad' is purely subjective for most of that. The only parts we can all agree on is that the actual relation of self-risk to enemy-risk is no longer appropriately proportioned at the current level of power (and expectation of power, more importantly), and that ally-collision is a dumb thing (which also applies to non-explosive projectiles for that matter - people love to eat arrows too) but that's why I have my own solutions for those already given that do maintain the mechanic's fundamental design. It also cites the Cyanex being a 'proof' that shows it should go away from more weapons, which is blatantly opinionated. As I see it, the Cyanex shouldn't have self-damage because the player could take a perfect shot and then have it come back to punish them through no fault and with little agency of their own due to the automatic homing properties. Every other weapon they have predictable control enough over that the onus is back on them. Including the Komorex. In that post, you dismiss almost everything I say out of hand, without going into any detail. The most substantial thing I can get from that post is that you disagree with me, and therefore you do not consider my points objective. If this is your most damning indictment of my position... then you've failed to ever address my position, plain and simple. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: It's not a simple yes/no, and trying to make it one is false dichotomy. There are some tight spaces. There are never exclusively tight spaces that preclude that ~6m radius. Okay, so the answer is a yes; Warframe does have plenty of tight spaces that are not well-suited for explosive gameplay, and thus I am right in pointing out how Warframe's environments are not generally well-suited for self-damage as currently implemented. Your answer here is a) blatantly weaselly in its attempt to dodge a basic question (what exactly is the "false dichotomy" I am drawing here, pray tell?), b) a straw man, as I patently never claimed that Warframe's tilesets were only made of tight spaces, and c) utterly irrelevant to the point at hand, as the presence of some more open tiles, let alone the existence of tiles of dimensions barely above the radius of explosives, does not discredit the prevalence of cramped tiles, especially in older tilesets, which make the game clash with explosive self-damage. You have lost this point. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: No, you're still fundamentally wrong for the working assumption in general, you just had a couple actual exception cases which I knew about and addressed before you even showed up, stop trying to call this a personal victory. But, as pointed out, it's just just the "exception cases" you claimed to have addressed that you've acknowledged, even though you've subsequently apparently denied the very existence of multishot and the accuracy stat in Warframe. Whether or like it or not, even with the web of delusions you've spun in this thread, you couldn't stop yourself from admitting to basic contrary evidence. Thus I absolutely do declare personal victory, though I'd say it's more of a loss on your part. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: It was impossible to access the required extents of Blessing (primarily the DR) when it became relevant due to the flawed design. Self-damage emerged as a way to safely force that without risking one-too-many bullets causing outright death before Trin could finish casting. Self-damage was a treatment to the symptom, the design flaw was the cause which was subsequently treated to obviate the need for self-damage. Yet another interesting narrative that has strictly no relevance to reality. Again, it's not that complicated: Trinity could use self-damage to make herself and her team invincible via Blessing, and DE recognized it as a problem, so they nerfed Blessing and prevented any interaction with self-damage, as shown in the patch notes you are apparently trying to deny here. The end. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Let me ask you something: Would Castanas Trin have worked if Castanas couldn't be pure radiation? Would it have worked if resistance to radiation couldn't be additively stacked to >100% for complete immunity? How many Trinities accidentallied themselves to death because they mistimed the manoeuvre? i don't know, but then again... why should I care? None of this prevents the fact that Castanas Trin was treated as an exploit, with DE specifically mentioning self-damage as the problem, as per the link. I find it rather amusing that you would pit your own word against that of Digital Extremes on this matter, though it does illustrate perfectly how little facts seem to have an impact on your rhetoric. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Just because removing self-damage was the selected response does not mean it was the correct response. Self damage, again, was merely a catalyst to the outcome, not the core cause of why it was present. Rectifying additive resistance stacking would have also removed the overwhelming Trinity Link gameplay while also solving issues with situationally-invulnerable enemies, whom unfortunately remain a problem. Except that's not what's being discussed here: once again, I could not care less whether or not you consider that response the "correct" one, as you are clearly biased and the response clearly worked (Castanas Trin is no longer a thing in ESO, and additive resistance stacking is generally considered fine). My point was merely that Digital Extremes tends to view synergy between a warframe and self-damage to be exploitative, which is evidenced by the cases I brought up. The fact that I've directly referenced DE on the matter to prove my point, only for you to produce yet more knee-jerk denial, I think says everything about your approach in this argument. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You can also still charge up damage into Nyx's Absorb with triggering explosives, which is fundamentally the same process - self-damage in and ignored, more damage out to enemies. QED. ... except the synergy is nowhere near as notable, and continues to create no issues despite the changes to Absorb. It is thus obvious that DE would not feel a need to change anything. Engaging in whataboutism here does not contradict the point being made. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Aaand the reply box ganked almost the entire rest of the response when I tried to change something. I guess I have a ton of rewriting to do. Posting this bit to be edited.. god damnit, what a waste of time. If you consider this a true waste of time... why do any of it? I'm not forcing you to respond, and neither is anyone else. If you want to do something else with your life, you are most welcome to. It is this kind of commentary that makes your replies come across as almost pathological in their need to respond, if only for appearances' sake. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: This is why this over-verbose stuff detracts from legitimate conversation. Sorry, I'm going to half-ass this and chunk it in unattributed quotes for celerity's sake. RIP quality. So... no substantial change from the rest of your post, then? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Accused me of outright abuse. Just saying that I've not been infringed for it yet, so that's fairly baseless. If you have only been accused, and not punished... why even bring it up? Methinks the Tenno doth protest too much... On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Well look what just happened. Sucks to lose an hour's detailed rebuttal, and honestly, I had important things to do that limited how much time I could proceed right then. It takes sweet time to actually address things like this. Indeed, it does take sweet time to actually address things like this... which means you could have just put the thing on pause, and gone back to it later. Again, nobody asked you to try to speedrun your reply, so there was no reason to post half of it and ignore the rest if your actual intent was to reply to me properly. It is painfully obvious you are simply making excuses here, and if conciseness is really your concern, it would be better if you just conceded or dropped the point, and moved on. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Your 'verifiability' has mostly been through sheer repetition, unfortunately, calling things 'objective' when they're argued subjective, and 'ignored' when the address has either been overlooked or dismissed arbitrarily. But this is simply a lie, though, as I have in fact been the only one of us two pointing to independently verifiable facts (e.g. stats like multishot or accuracy), quoting us as needed, and using actual, literal logic to answer you. It is you who have not only been arguing through repetition, not to mention denying and dismissing arguments you can't answer, but have recently just given up on arguing altogether, preferring instead to claim you've answered a point before, without giving any specific reference or quote to the answer in question, in spite of how easy it would be to do so on these forums (as evidenced by me quoting prior replies in this very response). Ultimately, none of this goes against the fact that you're using your opinions of my character as an excuse to not argue properly yourself, one of several you've produced in this exchange. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: A player being imprecise or imperfect down not make them 'a lazy scrub', and all I'm saying is that they haven't elected to take the time to advance beyond said imprecision. But you're clearly not, as evidenced by all of your prior comments on players only making mistakes, not deserving the "luxury" of being able to recover from said "mistakes", of these players being inferior to you in skill, and all of these players' opinions being invalid simply because they're not "the true enthusiasts" of explosives. Your position is transparently elitist. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I think I made some 'witty' comment here but it's gone now. Guess you'll just have to settle for please address my argument and not cast aspersions on my character. Pointing out that you are making excuses to not engage in proper discussion (which you are) isn't casting aspersions on your character, no matter how offended you feel at getting called out. I have in fact addressed your arguments, though on top of that I have also pointed out that you've engaged in some pretty dishonest and antagonistic rhetoric on top of that (including casting aspersions on my own character) that gives me no reason to assume good faith on your part in this conversation. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Your "facts and evidence" have almost always been speculative and subjective, and this continued enshrinement of yourself as unassailably objective is kind of the point. Or, more simply, I've pointed to independently verifiable facts, such as "multishot is a commonly-used stat in Warframe that randomly generates additional projectiles that themselves have a random spread", or "Accuracy is a stat in Warframe that causes most weapons to have some amount of random deviation", but you have repeatedly try to dismiss all of those, as well as the entirety of Warframe, as "subjective", because reality simply does not suit your position. If you want to call those things subjective, then by all means, provide justification for it, but as it stands you have simply been dismissing the facts and evidence I've brought up as "subjective" without a shred of explanation, as noted in your very first "reply" to my original post. In other words: your own denial of objectivity and objective facts is not itself objective. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You "pointed out" (actually argued that) it is an unworkable design when I disagree. Putting aside how your disagreement stems from a denial of basic facts, that is not what I'm pointing out here: what I've shown here is that, for all your claims of open-mindedness, your position is by far the most rigid on this thread. The only change you have openly said you were prepared to settle for was for a reduction or capping of self-damage, with alternatives deemed a "luxury" in your own words. You yourself have said on many occasions that you did not want self-damage to change on a fundamental design level, which is why rebalancing it is your One True Solution (though even that much you've called a fundamental redesign above, so at this point I'm not sure if you're even okay with reducing self-damage anymore). Thus, claiming that you accept the need for self-damage to change is to grossly exaggerate your position, when you have categorically opposed all but one extremely conservative form of change. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The Lenz delay is still a luxury in giving you grace after making a mistake that does not need to be retrofitted to extant weapons. ... assuming that self-damage can only stem from a player mistake, which as shown already, is simply not true. Framing the Lenz's delay as a "luxury" is as nonsensical as it is elitist, and betrays your actual position on self-damage. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You have described an error in judgement which is still an error made by the player. ... but it's not an error in judgment when the game failed to convey proper information. If the player clips through what was supposed to be a solid wall, it is not the player's fault for making an "error in judgment", as there was clearly a mistake in designing the environment. Similarly, if a projectile collides with thin air simply because that was supposed to be a bit of level geometry, that isn't the player's fault. Once again, you are continuing to blame the player for things they are absolutely not responsible for, which is not how one actually goes about designing anything good. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Repeating this 'scenery' and 'unpredictable collision' idea of yours does not make it objective. ... why not? There are many documented instances of Warframe's level geometry not being perfectly reliable, so that much is objective fact. You denying reality does not make your denial objective. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: But it turns out my solution even solves for that because in my rebalance you still have some iteration of Cautious Shot to fall back on if you are not comfortable - it's just less extreme of a reduction and/or more of a detriment to the total damage, in accordance with the risk/reward balance resulting from the formula in play. ... but it doesn't solve for that, because you'd still be incurring whichever amount of self-damage for what isn't a player mistake. This is the fatal flaw I'm pointing out: a punishment mechanic for misplays does not work when it punishes players for something other than misplaying. Reducing self-damage may make the problem less severe, but it does not make the problem disappear completely, hence your solution fails to actually address the problem at hand. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The only tiles exhibiting zero 6m+ clearance spaces for entirely safe shots to be made are certain connecting corridors and dead-end 'locker rooms'. In cases where you are currently too cramped you have other weapons in your loadout unless specifically selected not to. But this is another straw man, as it's not just the rooms with less than 6m clearance that are a problem, as similarly cramped rooms that are not far above 6m clearance are aplenty, and demonstrably not great for explosives either. If the player has to constantly have another weapon around not to kill themselves when shooting normally, there's no reason to have the weapon around in the first place... hence why launchers are so rarely picked. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You have the option to backpedal if the situation calls for it. Electing not to do so, and to instead fire explosives in close quarters, is your own responsibility. Backpedalling does not consistently solve the issue if the issue is one of cramped spaces. Moreover, asking the player to constantly backpedal in a mission where everyone else is advancing full speed ahead is ridiculous and pointlessly strict in and of itself. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I have already observed the inherent limitation on output changes to be related to the current criticisms of self-damage. But you didn't, you simply said players would somehow be upset at getting one-shot when they're already getting one-shot. Your argument makes no sense, and is irrelevant to this specific point. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: You have no real way of knowing which of these people, including even the ones currently demanding no damage, would in fact ultimately become satisfied with a solely statistical (non-mechanical) rebalance. You might even be surprised yourself if it were offered. You're right, I have no real way of knowing... which is why I don't assume anything or try to argue on conjecture, unlike you. What you're telling me is that you have no real way of knowing as well, which only discredits your argument in the fact of plentiful evidence that the majority of people criticizing self-damage would have their issue solved with its removal. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Argued above not to be the case, not objective. I argue it broadly is (barring the very specific exception cases). It is an objective fact that projectile paths are not perfectly predictable, as they are influenced by random factors such as multishot and accuracy. You are thus flagrantly denying reality. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: As a matter of overall balance, yes, that is a risk with changes in general. But with how vehement you are against self-damage in its current form, the buff that would be needed for you to pick it up regardless is, implicatively, the strong-arming we wish to avoid This is a rather roundabout way of claiming that removing self-damage would make every weapon that currently has it overpowered, and so apparently because of my personality. Care to explain how any of what you've said even begins to make sense? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: It's not that poorly designed. It clearly is, though; it's not difficult to see, which is why so many players have pointed it out. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: And it doesn't hurt you. It is a mechanic literally designed to hurt you. Also, this is a pathetic excuse for keeping poor design in the game that does not in any way hold up to the many instances of poor design getting removed even when "it doesn't hurt you", by whichever standard you're setting here. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Now, if friendly-fire were always on them as well, you might have an argument. But it only affects you if you use it. So, you can leave that impact to players who don't mind it nearly as much. But that in itself doesn't hold water, because this is a team game, and individual performance can affect the team's. If a player accidentally gibs themselves hundreds of meters away in a mission where players are already at high risk of death, for example, or does so in a Sortie Spy mission and ends up triggering the alarms right down to a mission failure in the process, that self-damage did affect the rest of the team. Again, your arguments visibly don't apply to Warframe. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: The history went a little like this: TONKOR - PREDOMINANTLY USED - No risks, Incredible Reward Base launch level. Irrelevant self-damage, crit weapon, automatic headshots TONKOR - PREDOMINANTLY USED - No risks, High Reward Auto-headshots removed, slashing effectiveness by 75% in most content. Still dominating. TONKOR - Little-used - High Risk, Medium Reward Added self-damage to Tonkor Further reduced base stats of Tonkor So, hitting the reward alone didn't work. Applying the risk and further slashing reward together is why it dropped into outright disuse since. But it did, though: note how even you couldn't stop yourself from admitting that the reward was downgraded from "high" to "medium", which is ultimately why the Tonkor fell out of favor. Also worth noting is that the "risk" was increased not simply by adding more self-damage, but by making the weapon slower, making the player more vulnerable in-between shots, which also had a large impact on its popularity. Ironically enough, you yourself have given a perfect framework that demonstrates exactly why self-damage is utterly redundant in the balancing of launchers. As an even more ironic side note, your intended argument here also defeats your own proposal to cap self-damage, as the Tonkor's days of dominance occurred precisely when it had capped self-damage. If increasing risk were the only way to balance the weapon, and so only by having high self-damage, your proposal wouldn't satisfy that. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: If it had been left at Stage 2 Reward with Stage 3 (actual) Risks it might have found a niche of players (other than Salty Susans who missed it being outright broken) actually using and enjoying it even with its self-damage in play, but without dominating everything else. Might it have? Who knows, or cares. What about if the risk were changed to a "medium" by removing the self-damage, and simply keeping the weapon slow and spaced-out? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Conjecture yes, but far from impossible. ... but still pure conjecture. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I've agreed it could stand to be rebalanced. Mechanically it's fine. I'm not the only one who thinks that way, I'm just the one most prepared to engage to this extent. ... but the people who agree with you are still part of a tiny and disproportionately vocal minority, though. Meanwhile, the players who have actively expressed dislike of self-damage are legion. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Again working from an assumption that these players agree with you based on mechanics (above and beyond the identified actual problem cases) and would not be placated with statistical balance improvements. We can't know for certain unless we tried it. ... an assumption that seems to be rather affirmed by the people specifically complaining about self-damage as a feature, and not the finer point of how much self-damage is too much. Yet again, you are arguing on conjecture here. Is this really the best use of your time when you've complained previously about how long these replies were? On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Argued* Argued using facts and evidence. You seem to be under the impression that arguments are purely subjective, can simply be dismissed out of hand if you don't like them, and that this dismissal somehow makes the argument or the evidence it's based on untrue by default. Not only is this obviously untrue, it makes your entire argumentation here come across as even less of an honest attempt at discussion. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: If you made a mistake, you made a mistake. That is 1=1 logic. Whether or not you are allowed the grace to recover from that mistake is a separate question - you are not necessarily entitled to recover from it, because you have to admit, you messed up. But talking about "entitlement" here is idiotic: it is notably poor design for games to have binary pass-fail states, and games typically make an effort to give the player plenty of opportunities to recover from mistakes, including to the point of being able to cover them up completely. Alarm systems are generally a good example of this, and the Lenz's design is generally recognized as good because the "luxury" of recovering from a mistake is a genuine opportunity for gameplay. Meanwhile, instant self-damage generates no such opportunity: the player just eats the damage, and that's that. By Warframe's standards, where the player is typically given plenty of "luxury" to mess up, the latter model simply does not fit. On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: Perhaps there's opening for the niche of risky-but-more-gracious explosives as their own archetype expanding with future gear, but that doesn't need to detract from the highest-risk instant-forfeiture archetype (assuming said archetype is conferred appropriate benefits to compensate). But then what "appropriate benefits" would that constitute? They're not going to be the best weapons for single-instance damage, because sniper rifles can already one-shot the toughest bosses in the game and not kill the player in doing so, and most other weapons can clear crowds of high-level enemies in moments without any of the risk. Increasing the damage of these weapons in exchange for instant-kill self-damage therefore wouldn't work, and increasing the radius of these weapons would just increase the self-damage radius as well. There is therefore no valid balance reason to design such binary weapons, when one could simply turn them into weapons capable of killing crowds in a single shot, but that are slow to fire each shot (which already generates the proven fun gameplay of trying to line up the perfect shot into a crowd of enemies). On 2019-06-14 at 4:58 PM, TheLexiConArtist said: I've never said all future launchers have to use the current model in precision, I just argue against precluding the current model for current or future weapons. Even down to thematic 'realism' as with that other guy. Realism is itself a stupid argument to make in a patently unrealistic game like Warframe. In the end, your argument simply boils down to not wanting your toys to change. Or, rather, they'd be "your toys" if you actually used them at all, and this weren't a game with many more players you had to share those toys with. If you really do care about self-damage, and aren't just staying here to save face, how about this for a compromise: Remove self-damage as a baseline from all self-damaging weapons. Rework Firestorm, Concealed Explosives, and Thunderbolt to provide some bonkers damage/radius increase to weapons, at the cost of making them inflict self-damage if caught in the blast. See how many people actually use the mods. And, with that, players who truly love self-damage would be able to use those mods, and those looking to use explosives without dealing with such a crappy mechanic can do so without a problem. How's that sound? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LunaSelenis Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 Self Damage has no place in the game. The few times where it has been useful for certain builds to work, it has been changed so you can't benefit from it anymore; remember that Trinity Link build? yeah ..just like that. Dieing from selfdamage, reduces fun. No Fun = No Play = Quit using any Selfdamage things or Quit Game forever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldain Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 YE GODS THE LONG POSTS AND QUOTES. My scroll wheel almost broke just getting to the bottom of page 6. Seriously people sometimes less is more when it comes to any kind of debate...or at least snip the freaking quote blocks. On-topic: I never understood the self-damage issue in Warframe as most weapons that can inflict it aren't as good at crowd clearing as Warframe abilities in the first place (at least in today's Warframe) and could easily see it being removed completely. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Black-Cat-Jinx Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 34 minutes ago, Aldain said: YE GODS THE LONG POSTS AND QUOTES. My scroll wheel almost broke just getting to the bottom of page 6. Seriously people sometimes less is more when it comes to any kind of debate...or at least snip the freaking quote blocks. On-topic: I never understood the self-damage issue in Warframe as most weapons that can inflict it aren't as good at crowd clearing as Warframe abilities in the first place (at least in today's Warframe) and could easily see it being removed completely. Seriously I started trying to scroll through some of the thesises....thesi?.................whatever. And couldn't help by start laughing at just how long it goes on. My attitude really is that if there is a valid reason or build that makes them really useful, I'm okay with it. Something I have always said about talons, castanas, a few others, is that if you could build them as grenades... Something you can press alt fire from your rifle/primary weapon and (assuming it doesn't have intrinsic altfire) you just throw one each time you press alt fire either at a wall or floor like a tripmine grenade in destiny detonating when something comes close enough, or else explodes on impact when thrown at a target... I'm kinda cool with that causing self damage, because it's working for you like a grenade does. Or you can sling your rifle and carefully position your charges though in this game there's no reason to do that... It's not like you can only deactivate the shielding on this terminal by destroying these three access panels at the same time..... Anyway. If you're playing the game with rifle that doesn't do crowd control, like say, the tiberon prime... Good rifle, but is best at one target at a time... Have the alt fire button change fire select when you are ads... When you are not ADS, pressing altfire throws a sancti castana at the hoard of enemies charging you, probably stunning them and breaking up their charge, giving you more time to pick them off. The two weapons would potentially synergize together really well this way. An assault weapon, and grenades. And I'm really okay if they keep self damage in the game because that could work really well together and be worth the risk. But having to switch to your secondary weapon, and then go "flick flick...boom. Flick.... Boom... Flick flick flick... Boom.." it just feels bad for the mechanics of this game. So, long story short.... I always feel "self damage" should be the last resort in having to balance a weapon that is just too powerful otherwise. But instead Warframe applies self damage just topically on anything that "well this seems like it might cause self damage so lets just make it self damage cause....reasons..."................ And of course... As ive mentioned before... Thrown weapons like kunai and all the weapons built around them, just feel bad in this meta, too awkward, too weak...concealed explosives could help if they just distributed part of the overall damage to an area of effect............ But the reality is that CE is just a really, really good way to turn your self into hamburger... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aldain Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 4 minutes ago, (PS4)Black-Cat-Jinx said: Seriously I started trying to scroll through some of the thesises....thesi?.................whatever. And couldn't help by start laughing at just how long it goes on. I mean on one hand this is the most literate and verbose thread I've seen on the forums in a while, on the other hand there is a point when you reach "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" level of pointless words that just make people stop reading, and boy howdy page 6 has passed it, drawn a new line, and then shot past that new line at mach 10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(PSN)Black-Cat-Jinx Posted June 17, 2019 Author Share Posted June 17, 2019 2 minutes ago, Aldain said: I mean on one hand this is the most literate and verbose thread I've seen on the forums in a while, on the other hand there is a point when you reach "TERMS AND CONDITIONS" level of pointless words that just make people stop reading, and boy howdy page 6 has passed it, drawn a new line, and then shot past that new line at mach 10. I think they've since removed it but back when Apple came out with their ipod and music itunes the TOSEULA (name of an upcoming warframe weapon if ever I heard one) specifically banned, in as many words, using any part of itunes code as means to wage nuclear war.......... I actually stopped to read it one time and was like WTF.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(XBOX)CertainLeader6 Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 15 hours ago, (PS4)Black-Cat-Jinx said: Seriously I started trying to scroll through some of the thesises....thesi?.................whatever. And couldn't help by start laughing at just how long it goes on. My attitude really is that if there is a valid reason or build that makes them really useful, I'm okay with it. Something I have always said about talons, castanas, a few others, is that if you could build them as grenades... Something you can press alt fire from your rifle/primary weapon and (assuming it doesn't have intrinsic altfire) you just throw one each time you press alt fire either at a wall or floor like a tripmine grenade in destiny detonating when something comes close enough, or else explodes on impact when thrown at a target... I'm kinda cool with that causing self damage, because it's working for you like a grenade does. Or you can sling your rifle and carefully position your charges though in this game there's no reason to do that... It's not like you can only deactivate the shielding on this terminal by destroying these three access panels at the same time..... Anyway. If you're playing the game with rifle that doesn't do crowd control, like say, the tiberon prime... Good rifle, but is best at one target at a time... Have the alt fire button change fire select when you are ads... When you are not ADS, pressing altfire throws a sancti castana at the hoard of enemies charging you, probably stunning them and breaking up their charge, giving you more time to pick them off. The two weapons would potentially synergize together really well this way. An assault weapon, and grenades. And I'm really okay if they keep self damage in the game because that could work really well together and be worth the risk. But having to switch to your secondary weapon, and then go "flick flick...boom. Flick.... Boom... Flick flick flick... Boom.." it just feels bad for the mechanics of this game. So, long story short.... I always feel "self damage" should be the last resort in having to balance a weapon that is just too powerful otherwise. But instead Warframe applies self damage just topically on anything that "well this seems like it might cause self damage so lets just make it self damage cause....reasons..."................ And of course... As ive mentioned before... Thrown weapons like kunai and all the weapons built around them, just feel bad in this meta, too awkward, too weak...concealed explosives could help if they just distributed part of the overall damage to an area of effect............ But the reality is that CE is just a really, really good way to turn your self into hamburger... It is pretty annoying. I use an Amazon Fire for online stuff, and swiping my finger up and down the page HURTS. I wish Teridax would spare our fingers and scroll wheels. Please spare our fingers and scroll wheels Teridax. Pls? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadVoid118 Posted June 17, 2019 Share Posted June 17, 2019 19 hours ago, Teridax68 said: Long wall of text here On 2019-06-14 at 9:58 AM, TheLexiConArtist said: Long wall of text here Me think why waste time say lot word when few word do trick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dirtysmile Posted June 18, 2019 Share Posted June 18, 2019 Quote Bad players complaining about bad mechanics 😂 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now