saryn rework when?

[toxic_degenerate]

1 minute ago, DeMonkey said:

I was about to make a joke regarding wishing Dark Souls were that hard. But then I remembered Katana users and their R1 spam.

Warframe confirmed just as difficult as Dark Souls, le gasp?

You have to die to reach that sort of heaven. 

ah, a man of culture I see

[selig_fay]

20 минут назад, DeMonkey сказал:

You have to die to reach that sort of heaven. 

Heaven is too boring. It's boring when you always get what you want. 

[Xepthrichros]

46 minutes ago, zhellon said:

Heaven is too boring. It's boring when you always get what you want. 

You can probably go to Hell (mode) as outlined in a post I made elsewhere that nobody cared about.

[selig_fay]

28 минут назад, Xepthrichros сказал:

nobody cared about.

Because it is not enough to balance the options of mobs and the player. For example, energy parasites are dangerous, but some frames (such as the same Saryn) do not worry about it at all, because their powers are worth just an insignificant amount of energy. Players loves raids, for example, because in addition to killing mobs, you had to perform mechanics that were carried out only through command coordination. It's funny, it's hard(not really, but I won't judge just by myself), it blows ass. Ordinary mission, man, people are worth until 9999 level, you thinking that their will stop change characteristics? 
The warframe problem is that I can take the Op of the frame and not experience the problem because I already know what will happen on this mission. There may be more random events like boss spawn, or reactor overload that will change the type of mission, but will also add complexity, as they do not cancel the tasks of the main mission. And that, oops, you can lose because, the same Saryn can't defend the main target and the mobile defense target at the same time. At the same time, Vauban is capable of it.

I'm not saying developers should do this. But I'm saying that it can vary the gameplay a bit. We are fighting in entire technological complexes that can be used against us. In war all means well, but we only get tons of mobs that are not dangerous. And now imagine that it can be also pvp-pve mode where against 4 players there is a player who creates events and nothing more. It can be fun because it's a battle of coordination and mind. 

Edited October 13, 2019 by zhellon

[Xepthrichros]

7 minutes ago, zhellon said:

Because it is not enough to balance the options of mobs and the player. For example, energy parasites are dangerous, but some frames (such as the same Saryn) do not worry about it at all, because their powers are worth just an insignificant amount of energy. Players loves raids, for example, because in addition to killing mobs, you had to perform mechanics that were carried out only through command coordination. It's funny, it's hard(not really, but I won't judge just by myself), it blows ass. Ordinary mission, man, people are worth until 9999 level, you thinking that their will stop change characteristics? 
The warframe problem is that I can take the Op of the frame and not experience the problem because I already know what will happen on this mission. There may be more random events like boss spawn, or reactor overload that will change the type of mission, but will also add complexity, as they do not cancel the tasks of the main mission. And that, oops, you can lose because, the same Saryn can't defend the main target and the mobile defense target at the same time. At the same time, Vauban is capable of it.

I'm not saying developers should do this. But I'm saying that it can vary the gameplay a bit.

I can always just say double energy cost for hell mode.

Further Edit: 

The specifics of the difficulty slider are not so important, as it is conceptually.

To me, I can agree when people ask for challenge and interactivity. The only thing I fundamentally disagree with is when people insist on forcing this challenge and interactivity by stepping on others' toes. Sure, have challenging content, modes, etc. Sure, have interaction even on easy stuff.  But not at the expense of people who enjoy the nukes and power fantasy, or want certain things done in their preferred way. You are not happy cos the nukes stop you from killing with guns and stuff, and spoil your fun. But when you ask for nerfs, you spoil the fun for others who enjoy the nuke. You don't like your fun being spoiled, you know how it feels, but you want to do it to others. What is this? Revenge? Nerfs piss off people that enjoy certain things and don't want that to change. Sure, it's more work for the devs to make more modes, than it is to nerf X or Y. But I think modes also have good potential to be rewarding to the overall health of the game. There may be more difficult modes, and perhaps not many play it at first, and it might seem to not pay off in the short-term, but if the mode is well made and good thought and rewards are put into it, eventually it will build a new player base that likes that mode, and I can imagine people just playing on Hard or Hell mode constantly. And looking at the people that often ask for nerfs around here, I would say there already is a player base that wants such modes, just asking for it in a way that forces everyone to play it. And because they are trying to force it on people that don't want it, you get endless arguments and threads going forever about to nerf or not to nerf. Honestly, advocating for more modes and settings would resolve this and similar issues. People will have the options to play the way they want with like-minded people more easily. As opposed to the current state of forcing conflicting playstyles together, which results in a wall of text PVP on the forums arguing over what to do.

Edited October 13, 2019 by Xepthrichros

[selig_fay]

10 минут назад, Xepthrichros сказал:

I can always just say double energy cost for hell mode.

It's adding a condition that players can't fight against. For example, look at the chaos system that is implemented in borderlands 3. This system adds limits, such as -70% to weapon damage, but +70% to damage and active skill charging speed. What, I can use my skill more often and thus resist the system. Or -50% fire damage. Well, then I need another element. Or -50% damage to sniper rifles, but +50% damage to shotguns. Well, I'll just take the shotgun. 

And the problem with the idea of playing "Simon says" is that players can't resist it. You increase your energy consumption. Saryn doesn't worry about it, and Mag starts having problems because she uses her abilities constantly. As a result, you will simply create a mode that is similar to arbitrages, where only the meta of the same frames is valid. On the other hand, adding normal missions as temporary events is a different path, because even Saryn is able to pass spy because you have an operator. But no one will argue that it is harder than Loki or Wukong would have done.

Let's try this again, adding conditions that the players can't handle is the creation of a meta frame and not the complexity of the mission. Players don't have to fight against it using just the right frames because it doesn't carry anything separate as if you were standing on a normal defense. Once again, if the mission involves an increase in energy consumption, then you just take Trinity to your team and turn it into a normal mission. As a result, this mod is meaningless.

[Klokwerkaos]

22 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:

do you even hear yourself? this is an mulitplayer/coop game. 1 person should not be able to do the job of 4 people leaving the other 3 with not much else to do than picking up loot. i think its you who has not a clue about how multiplayer mechanics work.

its funny you suggest working against a team memeber just to have something to do. you obviously have nothing of any kind of importance to add.

You're wrong, though I understand how you got the wrong impression.  this is not a 4 player coop game at all. It's a one man army game.  if this is not the case, why are players able to destroy all content as early as mr 8 and carry the whole team?  additionally, how much discussion and squad communication happens in random pugs (ie, not premades)?  you got sold a bill of goods my friend.  reassess and you'll start to understand.

[Klokwerkaos]

13 hours ago, toxic_degenerate said:

oh yeah we should all git gud and press 1 then 4 then 4 then 4 and wait for it.. then 4

way to miss the entire point of what I said.  if you can't outdo saryn, then you need to learn more about the game and get better, because you can, you just refuse to, and that's a you problem, not a saryn problem.

[Xepthrichros]

1 hour ago, Klokwerkaos said:

way to miss the entire point of what I said.  if you can't outdo saryn, then you need to learn more about the game and get better, because you can, you just refuse to, and that's a you problem, not a saryn problem.

Agreed. I have outdone Saryn while using Atlas, Wukong and Ash. I've seen someone else do so with a Hydroid. Some of it requires context and good map awareness, being good at moving around fast. I don't achieve it all the time, as it depends on the Saryn player and map type too, but it is possible. Some people are not even trying and just passive aggressively acting AFK or leaving the game.

 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Xepthrichros
grammar

[Klokwerkaos]

2 minutes ago, Xepthrichros said:

Agreed. I have outdone Saryn while using Atlas, Wukong and Ash. I've seen someone else do so with a Hydroid. Some of it requires context and good map awareness, being good at moving around fast. I don't achieve it all the time, as it depends on the Saryn player. and map type, too but it is possible. Some people are not even trying and just passive aggressively acting AFK or leaving the game.

 

indeed.  you can totally outdo saryn with any frame.

[Xepthrichros]

23 hours ago, EinheriarJudith said:

do you even hear yourself? this is an mulitplayer/coop game. 1 person should not be able to do the job of 4 people leaving the other 3 with not much else to do than picking up loot. i think its you who has not a clue about how multiplayer mechanics work.

its funny you suggest working against a team memeber just to have something to do. you obviously have nothing of any kind of importance to add.

Lol. Nobody is working against a team member by attempting to kill as many or more than a Saryn team mate.

Most people's objective is simple: finish the mission ASAP. Whether it is the Saryn that does it, or someone else managing to do it, nobody seriously cares. I've outkilled Saryns and other nukers in the past, using a frame with no AOE nuke, and i've yet to see any of these players complain to me or point out they can't get kills or act like I personally offended them or whatever. Pretty sure most people are the same.

Except you guys of course, you special people, that can't be content with team success, but insist on this "What about me?" mindset, that choose to perceive nukers as being something personal against you, when they really aren't, many of them are just in it for the win, for the loot, no ulterior intention to ruin a team mate's day at all, but you choose to take offense and insist on "muh kills" "muh interactivity" and refuse to even improve yourself to get it, but want the entire game reduced to your speed to cater to you.

Edited October 14, 2019 by Xepthrichros

[DeMonkey]

2 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

You're wrong, though I understand how you got the wrong impression. 

Did they get that impression due to the fact that you can have a squad of 4 people and the game is advertised as cooperative?

You're right though, how silly of them for seeing these things and actually thinking the game was intended to be co-op.

You're doing that thing again, just a gentle reminder.

Edited October 14, 2019 by DeMonkey

[Klokwerkaos]

1 hour ago, DeMonkey said:

Did they get that impression due to the fact that you can have a squad of 4 people and the game is advertised as cooperative?

You're right though, how silly of them for seeing these things and actually thinking the game was intended to be co-op.

You're doing that thing again, just a gentle reminder.

that's exactly why they got that impression.  you're making my point for me.

yes, it "seems" like that is the answer... but the state of the game is absolutely not that, nor should it be...

the ONLY fix is to do the thing we all know they need to do that they refuse to do, which is to create gated aspirational content.  either that or nerf everything into the ground, all frames, all weapons and piss off everyone that earned everything so that the game play is all gunplay related and bonuses for vets equate to minimal perks fo 1-5% over base, at which point the game not only starts to become incredibly boring due to overbalancing, but also means everyone who has invested 1000s upong 1000s of hours gets a huge punch to the groin, because you and I both know, as soon as X gets nerfed all the people that were using it just go to the next most efficient thing, and the only logical solution to that is to make everything pretty close to the same and make sure the player base has no meaningful diversity and progression.  at that point, hello P2W microtransactions because that's the way those games stay afloat through proven market analysis of the last many years.  additionally at that point the game is a totally different game at that point, like not different between now and launch, but different like AAA bollocks nonsense.  This is the logical conclusion of all attempts at "balancing something around mid game players".

was there a time where this wasn't true?  sure, but it was also a different time with far less games competing for your attention and dollars.  this is why the only possible fix is to create healthy and rewarding "end game" which is something people have been clamoring for for literally years.  that said, arbitration adjustments recently have provided a decent bandaid fix being that there is a barrier for entry of about 500 hours and the content itself weeds out the weak in the first C rotation, allowing players with legit min/max builds to thrive long past that.  I would say it's given me personally enough to stay out of standard content except when I'm otherwise asked to go there by the game which is actually good too, for new and old players since it gives me the opportunity to showcase to newer players what they can aspire to and help them out a little, without being up their butts constantly ruining the game for them.

more stuff like that where there is meaningful rewards and has a high barrier to entry is the only way to keep people separated and that needs to happen.  the crucial failure of eso, which is where most people cry themselves to death on the forums, is that there is still a reason to do it as it's one of the more rewarding game modes.  frankly either the barrier for entry needs to be upped for that mode, or there needs to be a higher level of content with similar but more rewarding drop tables and I'd advocate for the latter because a decent xp farm when we have hundreds of weapons to grind is something I think is appropriate for mid game players.  do you really think people would hang around eso with saryn if they had better outlets?  no, they wouldn't.

right now endgame mode players are all dressed up with no place to go, so we are forced into content we realistically shouldn't be doing, alongside people that should be doing it, far far too much due to power disparity.  I want to be clear, I'm not saying some things couldn't use tweaks, but this constant crying over saryn is frankly old and far past annoying at this point.  and people wanting de to go mess with her kit again should note that she's gotten buffed even more every time they do, so maybe they should take a hint.  That said, every frame is OP, every frame is viable for all content, and the only people that cry about this are the people who can't contend, who haven't invested enough to be at that level where saryn being in their squad is irrelevant.  plus it's easier to invest to that level now more than ever, and yet people still cry.  frankly I'm sick of it and I'm not worried if anyone finds the facts of the matter to be inconvenient to their narrative.  I'm sick of hearing it, seeing it, and at this point I find the topic itself to be an outright failure of anyone that agrees with it.  at this point, there are no secrets.  anyone can out dps saryn with minimal investment compared to back in the day of literally 12 months ago (same rivens from that time were 20k now they are about 1200, which is easily achievable to anyone in a day if they earned their way up and learned how to trade along the way), if they choose not to that's on them, and these frequent tantrums can and should be directly correlated to a five year old flipping over a board game because they aren't winning enough.

the real gripe shouldn't be that saryn is too powerful, it should be that players with crap casual gear shouldn't be playing with people with min/max gear, but we are because we're forced to under the current paradigm, but they don't see that because they can only see things from their very narrow and poorly thought out perspective.

as a short term fix, since aspirational content is likely never coming, i might suggest pulling radiants from eso and increasing rare relic drops there, removing rares from so, and then renaming current eso to sso "standard sanctuary onslaught" and then making eso into something that does drop radiants and make it require 2 R3 arcanes and a max rank riven and mr 20 to enter, as well as max rank wf and up the enemy base level by 20.  this will help split the player base up a bit.

do that and watch how many mr 10s stop crying that they can't keep up with saryn in a game mode marked "elite" (as in, you're not elite, so stop crying because you shouldn't even be here and if it wasn't for your carry you wouldn't be doing 8 rounds).  these threads will still happen, because someone always needs to cry about something on the internet, but it will decrease the problem at least by half.



 

Edited October 14, 2019 by Klokwerkaos

[DeMonkey]

12 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

nor should it be...

And why is that, pray tell? Why shouldn't this game be co-operative? What makes your opinion on how the game should be more important than anyone elses?

There is no "impression". The game was designed with cooperative play in mind, the powercreep has simply gotten away from them. 

That doesn't mean that people are wrong to look for cooperative play here.

Again, you're doing that insufferably arrogant thing again.

[Teridax68]

I have a bone or two to pick here:

53 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

yes, it "seems" like that is the answer... but the state of the game is absolutely not that, nor should it be...

It would require some particularly strong amount of justification to make the claim that Warframe, a multiplayer game, should not enable multiplayer gameplay, and I haven't really seen anything to that effect. I do, however, think it is not great reasoning to infer that Warframe shouldn't feature cooperative gameplay simply because it doesn't do the best job of it at the moment (and even then, it does in fact have quite a few cooperative elements). In the end, we could armchair philosophize all day about whether or not Warframe should be a cooperative game, what cooperative gameplay even means, and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that many players have been in the situation where they were incapable of interacting with enemies in a mission, simply because another frame had killed them before they had a chance. That I do not think is a fun gameplay experience, nor one the game should feature.

53 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

the real gripe shouldn't be that saryn is too powerful, it should be that players with crap casual gear shouldn't be playing with people with min/max gear, but we are because we're forced to under the current paradigm, but they don't see that because they can only see things from their very narrow and poorly thought out perspective.

I'm not sure gear really is the issue here, because a properly kitted-out Saryn can kill enemies before other players can even start attacking them. When running certain missions alongside a Saryn as Trinity, simply marking an enemy with Energy Vampire was often impossible or exceedingly awkward, because in the short animation delay the enemy I was targeting had already died. If Saryn merely dealt more damage to enemies than her allies, there would be no issue, because everyone would be hitting enemies, and it doesn't really matter at that stage who's dealing the most damage: unfortunately, the case instead is that Saryn has the tools to damage enemies before her allies can get to them, and that's what's causing problems, because the fire-and-forget nature of her abilities means she can clear a room without really trying, and so without really giving her allies a chance to do much.

Beyond that, I also question why we should be stratifying players along their gear levels, and this too I think is a case of is-ought confusion: for sure, Warframe is a game where players can vary immensely in power, but I don't think that automatically means we should separate players along imaginary power levels and prevent them from playing together, because most of the time this happens now, the results I'd say are in fact fairly positive. In missions where low-MR players get to play alongside those with more exotic frames and weapons, plus a full complement of mods, to say nothing of the cosmetics they may have equipped, that's a prime opportunity for the beginner to look at that veteran and aspire to progress to that level of awesomeness. In most cases, it works out well, because most frames don't monopolize combat, and so can play well with each other. Saryn just so happens to be one of the exceptions to that rule.

53 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

as a short term fix, since aspirational content is likely never coming, i might suggest pulling radiants from eso and increasing rare relic drops there, removing rares from so, and then renaming current eso to sso "standard sanctuary onslaught" and then making eso into something that does drop radiants and make it require 2 R3 arcanes and a max rank riven and mr 20 to enter, as well as max rank wf and up the enemy base level by 20.  this will help split the player base up a bit.

Why do we even want to split up the playerbase in the first place? Isolating entire groups of players from each other in a multiplayer game is a terrible idea, because it lowers the matchmaking pool for each of those groups and makes the community feel smaller as a result. I'm all for aspirational content and veteran-level challenges, but I feel that's a red herring in a discussion that's meant to be about Saryn and her ability to kill enemies constantly across large distance and through walls, as I fail to see how harsher content gates would solve that problem.

[toxic_degenerate]

11 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

way to miss the entire point of what I said.  if you can't outdo saryn, then you need to learn more about the game and get better, because you can, you just refuse to, and that's a you problem, not a saryn problem.

b r u h  there is nothing to kill, a good saryn can infect everything in the room and even in other rooms, you *can* tryhard and outkill a saryn but why would u want to? theres nothing to gain from it but some yellow text, plus you think this game is a "one man army game"  guess you just forgot what a support frame is.

(also stop being an insufferably elitist its warframe not an esport and we're trying to make sure warframe is fun)

[Klokwerkaos]

10 hours ago, toxic_degenerate said:

b r u h  there is nothing to kill, a good saryn can infect everything in the room and even in other rooms, you *can* tryhard and outkill a saryn but why would u want to? theres nothing to gain from it but some yellow text, plus you think this game is a "one man army game"  guess you just forgot what a support frame is.

(also stop being an insufferably elitist its warframe not an esport and we're trying to make sure warframe is fun)

so wait, you want to kill with minimal effort, but don't like saryn... because you don't want to "try hard" which is also minimal effort...

sounds like some bs.

[Klokwerkaos]

18 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

And why is that, pray tell? Why shouldn't this game be co-operative? What makes your opinion on how the game should be more important than anyone elses?

There is no "impression". The game was designed with cooperative play in mind, the powercreep has simply gotten away from them. 

That doesn't mean that people are wrong to look for cooperative play here.

Again, you're doing that insufferably arrogant thing again.

the reason it shouldn't be is because without meaningful progression players won't stick around to be become endgame, they will quit if the game is a static loop.  

not sure if you heard, but players that invest 1000s of hours, in general, would like tangible in game rewards for that, and power level is one of those ways that this can be achieved, and a mandatory one (cosmetics only go so far, see TF2).  I already explained this indirectly in my post if you read further about the logical conclusion.

Yes, I get it, you're too good to be an elitist with your 1000s of hours, and you're better than all of us that want actual tangible rewards to gameplay, and want everything centered around gunplay dynamics which is why you mained wukong for the longest time while he was crap (not sure what you're doing now that he's actually good these days, Maybe ember main?).  Well thing is, lots of players that stick around, possibly the majority of players that stick around to endgame levels of 5K+ hours in mission, they got there because they were efficient and stacked their numbers appropriately and min/maxed to hell and back and enjoy having an actual in game reason to progress and design the next most broken thing for de to nerf.

i get it, you're above all that and are a champion for the little guy.  that's wonderful (+1000 snark), but the point remains that a lot of players are diametrically opposed to that, and that a lot of people that are crying for nerfs would be too if they ever managed to achieve/earn that level too, but sadly, most of them will spend more time crying on the forums than playing.

Your cause is in the right place, but the absolute value of it is in direct opposition to a healthy chunk of the player base currently and in the future, and game health requires power level advancement... it also requires challenge appropriate to that, which is currently missing.  I mean sure, if you want vet retention to be reduced to you and the five people that want the game to have no meaningful power level advancement along with you, sure man, that's a great idea... the rest of us want content appropriate to the level we earned and that's a lot of folks (see 20 million posts about where is endgame?).

thus, the appropriate response, rather than alienating the vast majority of players that are in retention, the goal would be to split with gating the way arbs do, but at a higher power level with greater gating.  this solves the issue right off the bat of people crying about op builds doing 60% of their missions for them and solves the issue of vets wanting challenge and reward.  two major issues solved for the price of 1... or we alienate all players with ultimate power who have invested 1000s of hours in game, and tell them "f u" and make sure that nobody ever gets to become a vet because everyone quits before then.

[Klokwerkaos]

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

It would require some particularly strong amount of justification to make the claim that Warframe, a multiplayer game, should not enable multiplayer gameplay, and I haven't really seen anything to that effect. I do, however, think it is not great reasoning to infer that Warframe shouldn't feature cooperative gameplay simply because it doesn't do the best job of it at the moment (and even then, it does in fact have quite a few cooperative elements). In the end, we could armchair philosophize all day about whether or not Warframe should be a cooperative game, what cooperative gameplay even means, and so on, but that doesn't change the fact that many players have been in the situation where they were incapable of interacting with enemies in a mission, simply because another frame had killed them before they had a chance. That I do not think is a fun gameplay experience, nor one the game should feature.

I will clarify since your point is not wrong, but not entirely right.  the current problem is that players are either under powered if they are new or overpowered if they are old.  the game SHOULD be coop, but segmented so people are playing with other players at appropriate power level, but as it stands, the game forces old and new to play together far too often.  yes you want some crossover to exist... but minimally.  But the old players have no content to pursue because even the gated stuff is gated at like mr 6 and 8... this means that players with over 5K in mission hours have no place to go.

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

but I don't think that automatically means we should separate players along imaginary power levels and prevent them from playing together

these aren't imaginary, they are very real, hence this thread.

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

In most cases, it works out well, because most frames don't monopolize combat, and so can play well with each other. Saryn just so happens to be one of the exceptions to that rule.

you're missing the point.  lets saryn is nerfed into obscurity today... well, equinox, melee nuke, volt, etc.  no matter what you do, the majority of players that focus on being op will just move to or invent the next most broken thing to be more efficient.  this is a viable way to enjoy the game, and the game actually incentivises it, as it should (ie, if you are more efficient you get more rewards).

 

 

18 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Why do we even want to split up the playerbase in the first place? Isolating entire groups of players from each other in a multiplayer game is a terrible idea, because it lowers the matchmaking pool for each of those groups and makes the community feel smaller as a result. I'm all for aspirational content and veteran-level challenges, but I feel that's a red herring in a discussion that's meant to be about Saryn and her ability to kill enemies constantly across large distance and through walls, as I fail to see how harsher content gates would solve that problem.

uh... matchmaking pools are a problem?  dude, it"s not an issue for anyone but new players that are doing dead content that is irrelevant and only at 2 am on a tuesday.

[Gurpgork]

10 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

the reason it shouldn't be is because without meaningful progression players won't stick around to be become endgame, they will quit if the game is a static loop.

And that's totally valid, but cooperative play can coexist with meaningful progression. And under no circumstances does "progression" have to mean "one player can play the mission for four people with basically no effort." 

12 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

thus, the appropriate response, rather than alienating the vast majority of players that are in retention, the goal would be to split with gating the way arbs do, but at a higher power level with greater gating.  this solves the issue right off the bat of people crying about op builds doing 60% of their missions for them and solves the issue of vets wanting challenge and reward.  two major issues solved for the price of 1... or we alienate all players with ultimate power who have invested 1000s of hours in game, and tell them "f u" and make sure that nobody ever gets to become a vet because everyone quits before then.

I have thousands of hours in the game, and Saryn still annoys the hell out of me. The thing that keeps me invested in the game is working on builds and loadouts and finding interesting weapon/Warframe synergies and stuff like that, and nothing makes that feel like wasted effort faster than Saryn stepping into the mission and effortlessly obliterating everything within 3 rooms of her. As one of the players with thousands of hours in the game that you want to protect, I guarantee I feel far more alienated when I'm stuck in a ghost town of a mission with a Saryn than I do when I have to play with low level players and/or fight enemies below level 100. 

And unless you're proposing we fight level 3,000 level enemies, Saryn doesn't take much more time to kill a high level enemy than a low level one, and it definitely doesn't take more effort. Hell, it might be easier for her to kill a level 150 enemy than a level 15 enemy, because she needs big health pools for her damage to accumulate. 

Warframe is, at its core, a casual coop game, and it will thrive much more on freedom of choice and exploration than it will on sweaty tryhard endgame content. 

5 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

the current problem is that players are either under powered if they are new or overpowered if they are old.

This would be a much smaller problem if being an overpowered vet didn't mean that you can kill everything on the map with basically zero effort. You can make Khora's Whipclaw do absolutely stupifying amounts of damage if you have the endgame resources, but that doesn't mean that Khora can kill everything on the map before the other players even know that it spawned. 

13 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

you're missing the point.  lets saryn is nerfed into obscurity today... well, equinox, melee nuke, volt, etc.  no matter what you do, the majority of players that focus on being op will just move to or invent the next most broken thing to be more efficient.

You don't have to go far down the list of things to nerf before you've created a significantly healthier coop environment. Even if Maiming Strike spam was left standing as the last bastion of our current meta, that leaves behind a very different game. Because in order to use Maiming Strike to kill everything on the map before your allies can touch it, you have to know where the enemies are first, and you also have to have the mobility to get to them the fastest. That is a dramatically different thing from Saryn or Volt getting almost all of the kills basically because they set foot in the mission. 

[DeMonkey]

1 hour ago, Klokwerkaos said:

+1000 snark

You see, this is why you're generally unliked.

You're insufferably arrogant, incredibly demeaning and disturbingly stubborn. There is no value to be had in arguing with you, because not only are you incapable of ever conceding a point, you actually believe you have all the answers, you've even stated as such. Your arguments are contrived and fallacious.

This is, as far as I can tell, some form of tragic delusion. You can do better, I've seen you do better.

Edited October 15, 2019 by DeMonkey

[Teridax68]

4 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

I will clarify since your point is not wrong, but not entirely right.  the current problem is that players are either under powered if they are new or overpowered if they are old.  the game SHOULD be coop, but segmented so people are playing with other players at appropriate power level, but as it stands, the game forces old and new to play together far too often.  yes you want some crossover to exist... but minimally.  But the old players have no content to pursue because even the gated stuff is gated at like mr 6 and 8... this means that players with over 5K in mission hours have no place to go.

Well no, this completely ignores the question of why players even need to be under- or overpowered in the first place, if all it does is split up the playerbase. As mentioned above, there are clear benefits to having veterans play alongside newbies, and I think it would be a loss to the game if that were discouraged.

4 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

these aren't imaginary, they are very real, hence this thread.

Power differences exist, but any sort of system that quantifies it in order to discriminate between players is going to be by nature arbitrary, and thus imaginary. This thread wasn't made because of power differences, but because Saryn, when properly built, creates problems regardless of other players' power levels, as mentioned already.

4 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

you're missing the point.  lets saryn is nerfed into obscurity today... well, equinox, melee nuke, volt, etc.  no matter what you do, the majority of players that focus on being op will just move to or invent the next most broken thing to be more efficient.  this is a viable way to enjoy the game, and the game actually incentivises it, as it should (ie, if you are more efficient you get more rewards).

Except not literally every frame has the same issues as Saryn, so as you go down the list, eventually that kind of issue is going to stop (and I don't think that many other frames would need changes). It is also worth mentioning that Maiming Strike is set to be nerfed with Melee 3.0, and Ember is being reworked completely to have her fire-and-forget radial nuke removed, so those kinds of changes are in fact happening. Monopolizing gameplay by killing enemies through walls constantly is not the game's only problem, but then that is all the more reason to comprehensively examine and address the game's issues, not stick our heads in the sand until the end of time.

4 hours ago, Klokwerkaos said:

uh... matchmaking pools are a problem?  dude, it"s not an issue for anyone but new players that are doing dead content that is irrelevant and only at 2 am on a tuesday.

Which is, by the way, still an issue, but your reasoning here is incredibly short-sighted, as it relies upon the fact that Warframe is already doing well. My point isn't that splitting up the playerbase will kill a game with healthy player numbers, but that it accelerates their decay whenever a drop occurs, because the player count drops are more keenly felt. This is simple mathematics, by the way, so I'm not certain which part of my point here you are even attempting to debate.

[Klokwerkaos]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Well no, this completely ignores the question of why players even need to be under- or overpowered in the first place, if all it does is split up the playerbase. As mentioned above, there are clear benefits to having veterans play alongside newbies, and I think it would be a loss to the game if that were discouraged.

because power is a tangible thing, and is a tangible and necessary reward for gameplay.  if it isn't so, then you end up with the 1-5% perk problem when taken to it's logical conclusion.  would also eliminate uniqueness of frames, which is likely never going to happen.

 

 

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Power differences exist, but any sort of system that quantifies it in order to discriminate between players is going to be by nature arbitrary, and thus imaginary. This thread wasn't made because of power differences, but because Saryn, when properly built, creates problems regardless of other players' power levels, as mentioned already.

problems that can be overcome and outdone with proper investment by any frame.

 

 

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Which is, by the way, still an issue, but your reasoning here is incredibly short-sighted, as it relies upon the fact that Warframe is already doing well. My point isn't that splitting up the playerbase will kill a game with healthy player numbers, but that it accelerates their decay whenever a drop occurs, because the player count drops are more keenly felt. This is simple mathematics, by the way, so I'm not certain which part of my point here you are even attempting to debate.

and the way to fix that is through player retention, which is an entirely separate issue.

 

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Except not literally every frame has the same issues as Saryn, so as you go down the list, eventually that kind of issue is going to stop (and I don't think that many other frames would need changes). It is also worth mentioning that Maiming Strike is set to be nerfed with Melee 3.0, and Ember is being reworked completely to have her fire-and-forget radial nuke removed, so those kinds of changes are in fact happening. Monopolizing gameplay by killing enemies through walls constantly is not the game's only problem, but then that is all the more reason to comprehensively examine and address the game's issues, not stick our heads in the sand until the end of time.

and these will not fix the problem of players finding the best and most efficient methods of speed murder.

[Klokwerkaos]

7 hours ago, DeMonkey said:

You see, this is why you're generally unliked.

You're insufferably arrogant, incredibly demeaning and disturbingly stubborn. There is no value to be had in arguing with you, because not only are you incapable of ever conceding a point, you actually believe you have all the answers, you've even stated as such. Your arguments are contrived and fallacious.

This is, as far as I can tell, some form of tragic delusion. You can do better, I've seen you do better.

I mean, you say that, but didn't make any effort to address any of the points I made... who's on a high horse?

 

[Teridax68]

10 minutes ago, Klokwerkaos said:

because power is a tangible thing, and is a tangible and necessary reward for gameplay.  if it isn't so, then you end up with the 1-5% perk problem when taken to it's logical conclusion.  would also eliminate uniqueness of frames, which is likely never going to happen.

The what problem? How exactly do gains in power define the uniqueness of frames? Why is power "a necessary reward for gameplay", especially given that many players keep on playing long after they've capped on power? What does the tangibility of power have to do with its necessity, or the need to split up the playerbase? None of what you just said is justified, or even makes any inherent sense.

Quote

problems that can be overcome and outdone with proper investment by any frame.

How?

Quote

and the way to fix that is through player retention, which is an entirely separate issue.

No, we are not talking about a separate issue; I just pointed out that splitting the playerbase up into smaller groups makes those groups more liable to experience degradations in matchmaking if there is ever a drop in player numbers compared to a single, unified group. It is an elementary argument you are rather obviously dodging, as even know you cannot contradict it convincingly.

Quote

and these will not fix the problem of players finding the best and most efficient methods of speed murder.

But as said already, speed murder is fine, making it impossible for others to participate in murder unless they have some equally broken frame is not. It is okay when a person kills faster than the others if everyone else still gets to seek out enemies and fight them, which is what happens with most frames, because most frames can't auto-kill enemies across long distances and through terrain. Thus, there is already a solid existing benchmark one can set as a goal, as opposed to the slippery slope you are unsuccessfully trying to impose instead with no justification.

Edited October 15, 2019 by Teridax68