Players Hate balance in Warframe

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

Talking to my friend on warframe (picture that me friends haha) about balance me and him struck up a very beneficial and conversation about balance. And the players both vets and casual players hindering this whenever DE tries to balance the game so content would be accessible for everyone.

him a newer player with around 300-400 hours (and a higher mr then me HMPH) and me the “salty vet who music hate the game and must put himself through torture by playing the game past 1k hours”  sat there and talked about balance and it started with the Saryn rework originally. Him citing how I used to be a power fantasy geek and didn’t want nerfs or reworks because I saw no need for warframe to have a lot of difficulty (still feel the same partly but it’s nothing wrong with some)

he cited how I was having a hissy fit when they were reworking Saryn. How I was against Maiming Strike changes and melee changes.  The nerfs to ember etc. saying “weren’t you the same guy who was against change in warframe not to long ago. Dude I remember if the words nerf and wf came together you’d ignore the conversation completey” and well.... he was right. That made me think about not just me but the rest of the playerbase. And how much we hate change. Looking at the future of warframe and them trying to tone things down however I do see them trying to make the game less and less full of powercreep and more engaging. I see them removing a lot of the mass kill and ez autopilot options that were once there slowly and changing the game for something that in my opinion looks more sustainable. But because they’ve neglected balance so long the community (on both ends) is majorly skeptical or against it. They tried to fix looting before hand way before the mod drop booster they tried to tone down on map clearing frames starting with the Saryn rework or at least require some sort of engagement to do so or keep up the dps(imo I think Saryn needs a slight nerf to her dmg rampup because she scales insanely fast still)

and they tried with melee and damage changes and the community was in an uproar. I still believe the game has no real content (for long standing players) but that ties into the state of balance as well. De hasn’t really been neglecting the state of balance. Well they have but the playerbase which myself I’m included in has been pushing against it. I say. Let’s let them give another go at damage 2.0 and let them roll out melee 3.0 in full and then adjust to it. But also I believe that DE should stop catering to mostly the casual audience (not entirely or as much as they do) and show some love to some (not all of our crazy) ideas

 

[belanya]

DE hates it too so i guess its fine

[LSG501]

I'd say players aren't against balance, they're *against* seeing their weapons nerfed to get said balance, a subtle but big difference imo. 

DE needs to bring weaker weapons up to the 'meta' and then balance around the overall higher damage outputs of weapons rather than their usual approach of balance which usually ends up nerfing something.... same effect of balance but without the actual 'appearance' of nerfing the weapons we own. 

Having said that armor scaling does probably need looking at still. 

Edited October 18, 2019 by LSG501
put about instead of against

[BansheePrime]

Just now, LSG501 said:

I'd say players aren't against balance, they're about seeing their weapons nerfed to get said balance, a subtle but big difference imo. 

DE needs to bring weaker weapons up to the 'meta' and then balance around the overall higher damage outputs of weapons rather than their usual approach of balance which usually ends up nerfing something.... same effect of balance but without the actual 'appearance' of nerfing the weapons we own. 

Having said that armor scaling does probably need looking at still. 

Ah yes. The normal obligatory explanation of don't nerf the 1 buff the 99. 

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

Just now, BansheePrime said:

Ah yes. The normal obligatory explanation of don't nerf the 1 buff the 99. 

I saw it as being the 99 up to par and put the 1 down to that level of where you put the 99 

[ExcaliburUmbra]

We don’t hate balance, or changes.

There’s a vocal minority that facerolls the keyboard every time they perceive a “nerf” to their favorite toys, but Reddit and the Forums aren’t representative of the entire playerbase.

Plus you only ever hear about nerfs, but have you considered all the positive changes and buffs that have occurred throughout the years as well? I guarantee you that the “community reception” to those was completely different.

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

4 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

I'd say players aren't against balance, they're about seeing their weapons nerfed to get said balance, a subtle but big difference imo. 

DE needs to bring weaker weapons up to the 'meta' and then balance around the overall higher damage outputs of weapons rather than their usual approach of balance which usually ends up nerfing something.... same effect of balance but without the actual 'appearance' of nerfing the weapons we own. 

Having said that armor scaling does probably need looking at still. 

I feel like with the sledge and the infested grave that came with these operations they are trying to do such

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

Just now, ExcaliburUmbra said:

We don’t hate balance, or changes.

There’s a vocal minority that facerolls the keyboard every time they perceive a “nerf” to their favorite toys, but Reddit and the Forums aren’t representative of the entire playerbase.

Plus you only ever hear about nerfs, but have you considered all the positive changes and buffs that have occurred throughout the years as well? I guarantee you that the “community reception” to those was completely different.

In general he community is receptive of buffs. But looking at most to all communities in terms of gaming who isn’t? However buffing without proper balance no is a major issue. Nor do I state this is the entire playerbase at fault explicitly.

[LSG501]

15 minutes ago, BansheePrime said:

Ah yes. The normal obligatory explanation of don't nerf the 1 buff the 99. 

Actually no, it's more like basic psychology in a game where players want to feel 'powerful' [edit] and I'm guessing you failed to read the bit about balancing after it...[/edit]

13 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

I feel like with the sledge and the infested grave that came with these operations they are trying to do such

well until we see how melee whatever it is now works out we may need to wait on that a little.

Edited October 18, 2019 by LSG501

[Aldain]

9 minutes ago, LSG501 said:

DE needs to bring weaker weapons up to the 'meta' and then balance around the overall higher damage outputs of weapons

All that would do is exacerbate the problem of power creep trivializing most of the game.

As long as the players can deal hundreds to thousands of times more damage than what is needed to kill 99% of enemies in less than one second there will be no way to actually design anything that has any staying power without having to resort to outright immunity to damage, caps on damage, absurd levels of damage reduction, status immunity, ability immunity and so on.

When power creep reaches a point where it starts to cause parts of the game to need to be disabled to not be over in seconds it has gone too far.

[AuroraSonicBoom]

You don't get that in order to balance something you have to nerf what is imbalanced. The only other option is to always buff every other underperforming gear piece or mechanic until it becomes viable, and that's a fools errand. If DE had done that every time from the start we'd be fighting level 5000 enemies now and still complaining about the same things. What one needs to realize is that a lot of the time what's best for the game in the long term is bad for the individual player in the short term. Most of the players have a highly biased view on balance, so whenever something is nerfed it's viewed as negative regardless of whether it actually improves the game balance by making more playstyles competitive again.

[LSG501]

1 minute ago, Aldain said:

All that would do is exacerbate the problem of power creep trivializing most of the game.

As long as the players can deal hundreds to thousands of times more damage than what is needed to kill 99% of enemies in less than one second there will be no way to actually design anything that has any staying power without having to resort to outright immunity to damage, caps on damage, absurd levels of damage reduction, status immunity, ability immunity and so on.

When power creep reaches a point where it starts to cause parts of the game to need to be disabled to not be over in seconds it has gone too far.

It's almost like you didn't read anything in the post you quoted before commenting....  maybe try reading it again....

[Gabbynaru]

Yeah. It's a PvE game, who needs it? Like, today I saw an article about Borderlands 3 (I think, might have been Destiny 2) nerfing a gun and I facepalmed. Like, who cares, it's a single player game, let the people have their fun.

Balance is fun in a competitive environment simply because if the others you're going up against would have equipment much more powerful than you do, then you'd be pushed away, and so will anyone coming up against that scenario. But in PvE? Who the flip cares? You don't see Guppy being nerfed in Binding of Isaac, the spring or mines nerfed in Carmageddon or Ghandi's nukes nerfed in Civ, so why should balance be brought into a game where competition doesn't exist? It's way more fun to be powerful than it is to suck, even if everyone else sucks as well.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Gabbynaru

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

Just now, Gabbynaru said:

Yeah. It's a PvE game, who needs it. Like, today I saw an article about Borderlands 3 (I think, might have been Destiny 2) nerfing a gun and I facepalmed. Like, who cares, it's a single player game, let the people have their fun.

Balance is fun in a competitive environment simply because if the others you're going up against would have equipment much more powerful than you do, then you'd be pushed away, and so will anyone coming up against that scenario. But in PvE? Who the flip cares? You don't see Guppy being nerfed in Binding of Isaac, the spring or mines nerfed in Carmageddon or Ghandi's nukes nerfed in Civ, so why should balance be brought into a game where competition doesn't exist? It's way more fun to be powerful than it is to suck, even if everyone else sucks as well.

Balance is needed in every game especially a game where it has players either pitted with or against each other

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

7 minutes ago, AuroraSonicBoom said:

You don't get that in order to balance something you have to nerf what is imbalanced. The only other option is to always buff every other underperforming gear piece or mechanic until it becomes viable, and that's a fools errand. If DE had done that every time from the start we'd be fighting level 5000 enemies now and still complaining about the same things. What one needs to realize is that a lot of the time what's best for the game in the long term is bad for the individual player in the short term. Most of the players have a highly biased view on balance, so whenever something is nerfed it's viewed as negative regardless of whether it actually improves the game balance by making more playstyles competitive again.

I understand what your saying but in essence did I not somewhat agree to this in a way in the op brother?

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

Off topic but I love the free rep from my haters ❤️

[Gabbynaru]

6 minutes ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

Balance is needed in every game especially a game where it has players either pitted with or against each other

That's only really needed in a competitive environment. Why would it be needed in a cooperative one, when all people share the same goal, and the faster they achieve it, the better?

[(PSN)sweatshawp]

3 minutes ago, Gabbynaru said:

That's only really needed in a competitive environment. Why would it be needed in a cooperative one, when all people share the same goal, and the faster they achieve it, the better?

Proper balancing not just for players but for enemies and weapons to make sure one thing dosent work to well or is too strong. For example old Saryn was very strong and while you could nuke the map with equinox back in the day you could do it faster easier and more efficiently with Saryn (pre rework) more people would play Saryn and it became very trivial. Or the use of the tonkor because it was so strong (pre nerf) it was something that was ran too often and to much killing variety in games and the other weapons viability. Because sure “ the Beaton is good but the tonkor is way better and does more so let’s all run tonkor” mentality. Games like this die out and lose its freshness way to fast

[Cloverskull]

37 minutes ago, BansheePrime said:

Ah yes. The normal obligatory explanation of don't nerf the 1 buff the 99. 

More like "Don't nerf the fun stuff, make more stuff fun" 

[Gabbynaru]

1 minute ago, (PS4)sweatshawp said:

Proper balancing not just for players but for enemies and weapons to make sure one thing dosent work to well or is too strong. For example old Saryn was very strong and while you could nuke the map with equinox back in the day you could do it faster easier and more efficiently with Saryn (pre rework) more people would play Saryn and it became very trivial. Or the use of the tonkor because it was so strong (pre nerf) it was something that was ran too often and to much killing variety in games and the other weapons viability. Because sure “ the Beaton is good but the tonkor is way better and does more so let’s all run tonkor” mentality. Games like this die out and lose its freshness way to fast

Yeah but that's human nature, going for the best thing. And you know the saying, "if everything is special, nothing is." If every weapon and frame was equally viable for all missions, this game would get dull even faster than the scenario you described. I for one had a lot of fun with the Tonkor or the Miragulor, people loved Greedy Mag and Prism Mirage... those got nerfed, and with each nerf, the game becomes more and more dull. Because there is nothing to replace that fun that you just lost. Balance kills fun. What's the point of progression in a balanced game? Nothing, cause there is no progression, so there is no reason to play it, because the experience will be the same from minute 1 to hour 10, 100, 1000... So, I'll take crazy unbalanced Tonkor, Miragulor, Greedy Mag and Spore Saryn any day of the week, cause those are insanely fun, whereas what we have now... not so much.

[kapn655321]

I remember when I totally lost my cool about the Nidus launch chicken pox.

We get very emotionally invested into games like these.
There's a lot of time, effort, consideration..
When the boat rocks a little, you get to hear from Everyone who's having a bad week.

I've learned since 2014 that I trust these devs.
They make it right.. or they're making it right..
and often if they don't or can't, there are reasons
beyond their control that are not up for discussion.
Whether it's business or personal matters, or whatever.

This is a game I can adore so completely Because they are still working on it.
Development takes a TON OF TIME AND MONEY.
..and they have not been so ruthlessly money hungry as they can or perhaps
Should have been in order to make certain deadlines through the years.

Warframe is not perfect. ..but it can't get that way without Jarring Constant changes,
and a Tremendous amount of patience from both the players and the developers.
We cannot point to any game that is so completely better at doing everything WF does.
There is no such thing, there never has been before.
Many of the concepts have been explored before, but not across so many features
and aspects. It's Never been done.. and bearing that in mind, we should enjoy the ride.
They have families and crap to do, too..
..and they certainly can't get it all done in a brilliant and attentive way,
with 20,000 people Screaming at how incompetent they may be or have been in any
possible conceivable thing they do.

Players who are mired in their concerns for one feature or another,
I feel you. I have been there, too. Depending the day of the week, I might revisit there
totally by accident.. After that subsides, I return to this game.
For everything that isn't up to par yet, there's a dozen or more things I could do in game
instead. I'm here for the bot shooter, and I'm staying for the long haul.
I love Warframe, and it's Devs.. even when I don't agree, or see the reasoning.

These guys need some well wishing from us time to time.
"Don't blame your parents for everything wrong with you unless you're willing to thank them for everything right."

They don't have to develop this game, now after 9 years of work.
They don't have to make it free.
We don't have to play it.

Emotional investment or not, this experience is a privilege, not a right.
If you've been the player totally blowing their top on the forums,
keep in mind next time you're happy with a feature, to temper that with
some kindness and gratitude.

It's so hard to keep our critiques mindful, considerate, and appreciative of what we have.
With any luck, we don't all make this mistake so many times that they stop making this game.

[Loza03]

21 minutes ago, Gabbynaru said:

Yeah. It's a PvE game, who needs it? Like, today I saw an article about Borderlands 3 (I think, might have been Destiny 2) nerfing a gun and I facepalmed. Like, who cares, it's a single player game, let the people have their fun.

Balance is fun in a competitive environment simply because if the others you're going up against would have equipment much more powerful than you do, then you'd be pushed away, and so will anyone coming up against that scenario. But in PvE? Who the flip cares? You don't see Guppy being nerfed in Binding of Isaac, the spring or mines nerfed in Carmageddon or Ghandi's nukes nerfed in Civ, so why should balance be brought into a game where competition doesn't exist? It's way more fun to be powerful than it is to suck, even if everyone else sucks as well.

 

12 minutes ago, Gabbynaru said:

That's only really needed in a competitive environment. Why would it be needed in a cooperative one, when all people share the same goal, and the faster they achieve it, the better?

Do you like it when DE introduces a dozen new resource types with every large content drop? Do you like it when one person's fun stops your own? Do you like having rewards be useless fodder?

No? Those things aren't very good for the game. Constant accretion of new resources increases the complexity for new players, and makes for more annoying grinds. 'Getting there' too fast, especially for resource-based systems such as exist in Warframe, only worsen the inevitable hyperinflation issues resources experience. One person being able to dictate the experience others have sucks for everyone who doesn't have the same idea of fun (see also: every complaint about Limbo). Meta weapons being so much more powerful and requiring so little engagement makes anything that requires more engagement or offers less power being far below the curve that using them is a waste, at least for a not-inconsiderable chunk of the audience (since the 'goal' is to get stronger) and leaves you at risk of the above if your enjoyment of those things does outweigh your desire for more power.

4 minutes ago, Gabbynaru said:

Yeah but that's human nature, going for the best thing. And you know the saying, "if everything is special, nothing is." If every weapon and frame was equally viable for all missions, this game would get dull even faster than the scenario you described. I for one had a lot of fun with the Tonkor or the Miragulor, people loved Greedy Mag and Prism Mirage... those got nerfed, and with each nerf, the game becomes more and more dull. Because there is nothing to replace that fun that you just lost. Balance kills fun. What's the point of progression in a balanced game? Nothing, cause there is no progression, so there is no reason to play it, because the experience will be the same from minute 1 to hour 10, 100, 1000... So, I'll take crazy unbalanced Tonkor, Miragulor, Greedy Mag and Spore Saryn any day of the week, cause those are insanely fun, whereas what we have now... not so much.

I think you misunderstand 'balance' in this setting. Balance in a cooperative, singleplayer and competitive game are all entirely different. Why do you think Bungie got so much flak when they announced D2 would have the same balancing in PvP and PvE? Why is PvP Devil May Cry something that is never suggested on their Reddit? Why is Mann vs Machine so rarely played in TF2? Balance is core to each of those experiences, and changing it for genre shifts like that messes with it.

In the latter, progression does have to be avoided. But in Singleplayer and Cooperative experiences, balance simply means that the things in the game aren't breaking the game, either directly or through causing problems elsewhere. No system is in isolation. A lot of the most powerful things, whilst they may be fun in a 'ah yeah, look at all the STUFF and NUMBERS' way, aren't healthy in the long run. They cause other issues.

[(PSN)Silverback73]

7 minutes ago, kapn655321 said:

I remember when I totally lost my cool about the Nidus launch chicken pox.

We get very emotionally invested into games like these.
There's a lot of time, effort, consideration..
When the boat rocks a little, you get to hear from Everyone who's having a bad week.

I've learned since 2014 that I trust these devs.
They make it right.. or they're making it right..
and often if they don't or can't, there are reasons
beyond their control that are not up for discussion.
Whether it's business or personal matters, or whatever.

This is a game I can adore so completely Because they are still working on it.
Development takes a TON OF TIME AND MONEY.
..and they have not been so ruthlessly money hungry as they can or perhaps
Should have been in order to make certain deadlines through the years.

Warframe is not perfect. ..but it can't get that way without Jarring Constant changes,
and a Tremendous amount of patience from both the players and the developers.
We cannot point to any game that is so completely better at doing everything WF does.
There is no such thing, there never has been before.
Many of the concepts have been explored before, but not across so many features
and aspects. It's Never been done.. and bearing that in mind, we should enjoy the ride.
They have families and crap to do, too..
..and they certainly can't get it all done in a brilliant and attentive way,
with 20,000 people Screaming at how incompetent they may be or have been in any
possible conceivable thing they do.

Players who are mired in their concerns for one feature or another,
I feel you. I have been there, too. Depending the day of the week, I might revisit there
totally by accident.. After that subsides, I return to this game.
For everything that isn't up to par yet, there's a dozen or more things I could do in game
instead. I'm here for the bot shooter, and I'm staying for the long haul.
I love Warframe, and it's Devs.. even when I don't agree, or see the reasoning.

These guys need some well wishing from us time to time.
"Don't blame your parents for everything wrong with you unless you're willing to thank them for everything right."

They don't have to develop this game, now after 9 years of work.
They don't have to make it free.
We don't have to play it.

Emotional investment or not, this experience is a privilege, not a right.
If you've been the player totally blowing their top on the forums,
keep in mind next time you're happy with a feature, to temper that with
some kindness and gratitude.

It's so hard to keep our critiques mindful, considerate, and appreciative of what we have.
With any luck, we don't all make this mistake so many times that they stop making this game.

I need to fly to London and give Steve a hug...Stop staring at me! I just got something in my eye...both of them!

[(PSN)CrazyBeaTzu]

Your conversation with a random person is called "anecdotal". Do you have anything short and factual to say?

Edited October 18, 2019 by (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu
Niceness.

[kapn655321]

50 minutes ago, Aldain said:

power creep

I've thought about that a lot.

This game started almost a decade ago.
Power creep is perfectly acceptable when the whole game creeps up into a better spot.

It usually means that everything old becomes totally trivial..
But we have a secret weapon against that..
..our developers are still working on our game.

When is it power creep, and when it is revision?
Is there a difference?
Isn't power creep just better and more powerful ideas?

I think the difference would be a revision is when the old concepts
are retooled with better stats and functions to fit the new enemy mechanics..
and not just because they are so functionally outrageously better than all other options.

Right now we have power creep.
After phase 2 of melee changes, we'll be Vastly closer to it having become a revision.
..and if they're willing to do that, as they have been working on behind the scenes
thus far, than I think we have absolutely nothing to fear if the crap weapons stop
being unusable crap fodder.

Edited October 18, 2019 by kapn655321