How Can We Fix Nukers?

[Cubewano]

1 hour ago, NotGustavoM said:

So...we've reached a point where even dealing damage.... is now a problem.

I...I don't know if I should laugh or cry about this.

Dealing too much damage, certainly, but that's never not been a cause for concern in gaming in general. Game balance matters, go figure. 

Being able to beat up enemies is well and fine, being able to beat enemies so hard nobody else has anything to fight in a co-op game, not so much. 

[(PSN)CrazyBeaTzu]

Does anyone remember where the term nuke even comes from? Does anyone remember the Black Mage?

MMOs were always made up of a healer, Damage dealer, some type of thief or rogue, a tank or Paladin, and the black mage.

Is there some new generation of gamers that thinks this stuff just came outta nowhere?

AOE is just as much a part of gaming as single target, cone aoe and energy and health regeneration 

[(PSN)CrazyBeaTzu]

Oh I forgot the party buffer or bard. 

Wisp and other frames can make people just as ridiculously op, yet no one talks about that.

This is purely ego at not being able to kill stuff faster than another guy.

[(PSN)CrazyBeaTzu]

16 minutes ago, Cubewano said:

Dealing too much damage, certainly, but that's never not been a cause for concern in gaming in general. Game balance matters, go figure. 

Being able to beat up enemies is well and fine, being able to beat enemies so hard nobody else has anything to fight in a co-op game, not so much. 

It's a co-OP game because you and 3 other people are beating an objective.....you know all those missions we're doing....together?

Last time I checked, I was fighting Hydrolysts, not my team members damage. I actually want to be outdpsed, because that means my teammates are strong and capable. Instead of wasting my shard.

[RX-3DR]

2 minutes ago, (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu said:

Oh I forgot the party buffer or bard. 

Wisp and other frames can make people just as ridiculously op, yet no one talks about that.

This is purely ego at not being able to kill stuff faster than another guy.

Remember that one time you were in a defense mission and a Wisp placed some Motes around the Cryopod and all the enemies just died at the spawn before anyone even sees them? Or when Volt's Speed buff just instantly wiped enemies off the map? We can talk about how excessive some buffs are, going from dealing 4x more damage to near invincibility, but they pertain more to balance as opposed to gameplay as the player still needs some level of input beyond activating the buff.

The key problem is first, the removal of gameplay, then second, the balance of the game.

[C486]

I don't really see an issue with aoe characters, I mean in this case if someone wants to do all the heavy lifting, I'm not going to say no.

Besides, the point of co-op, in most cases that I've observed, one guy does all the work and everyone leeches. Win win really.

[Cubewano]

9 hours ago, (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu said:

It's a co-OP game because you and 3 other people are beating an objective.....you know all those missions we're doing....together?

Last time I checked, I was fighting Hydrolysts, not my team members damage. I actually want to be outdpsed, because that means my teammates are strong and capable. Instead of wasting my shard.

and you should in such instances have the opportunity to contribute and to feel involved, if one person can smear that piece of content out of existence before you have a chance to react that's a poor co-op design, as it isn't providing an experience for the entire co-op. 

this isn't about having the highest numbers, numbers aren't even wholly relevant to the matter, it's about an adequate gameplay experience for the whole team. 

[(PSN)CrazyBeaTzu]

1 minute ago, Cubewano said:

and you should in such instances have the opportunity to contribute and to feel involved, if one person can smear that piece of content out of existence before you have a chance to react that's a poor co-op design, as it isn't providing an experience for the entire co-op. 

this isn't about having the highest numbers, numbers aren't even wholly relevant to the matter, it's about an adequate gameplay experience for the whole team. 

Isn't providing an experience for the entire group? Most group makeups are a mix of players with vastly different skill levels. You're never really gonna find a solution for that. Was DE supposed to just give me a Certus lol? How am I supposed to let 2 people with mote amps and no void strike contribute? They need the shards to get a better amp. 

You're essentially saying every person should play according the slowest/newest/trolliest player.

"Hey guys, this player wants to open every locker and crate, I think that all 3 of us need to just follow him around so we dont taint his experience. "

 

 

[Vyra]

I've read it multiple times now, over several days i repeated the reading...
What exactly is the problem in here?

Mission gets done, everyone gets reward and even the weak can profit from it...
So...what is the problem?


I myself find it boring if i can't shoot things because everything is dead by the time i aimed at them...sure.
But i expect this.. and it doesn't matter if there are nukers or people with IGNIS or 2 melee berserkers...lol
Sometime is just feel useless then...but that's how life works.. XD

When i feel like it i just go alone, kill every enemy by myself, loot every locker...and enjoy the very pretty designed maps .. especially in Gas City ❤️

BUT, i would never want others to have their playstyle, work in their frames or power limited...why would i want other to be nerfed/limited because they are doing good?

really there are other problems int his game...and THIS is not one of them.. its an individual problem.. tied to a person.. not the game...

[Cubewano]

3 minutes ago, (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu said:

Isn't providing an experience for the entire group? Most group makeups are a mix of players with vastly different skill levels. You're never really gonna find a solution for that. Was DE supposed to just give me a Certus lol? How am I supposed to let 2 people with mote amps and no void strike contribute? They need the shards to get a better amp. 

You're essentially saying every person should play according the slowest/newest/trolliest player.

"Hey guys, this player wants to open every locker and crate, I think that all 3 of us need to just follow him around so we dont taint his experience. "

 

 

If they are able to actively play they are contributing, again it isn't about the numbers, its about the experience. If they get to engage with the content that's what matters, not if they are the most optimal or strongest person playing in the group, and that's an entirely feasible barrier to work towards, and its one most games multiplayer games achieve perfectly fine, including Warframe to a finer point until nukes became increasingly meta. 

That doesn't mean you have to be on their exact power scale or pacing, it just means you shouldn't be on a scale that can outright deny them any involvement. And that said, combat is a more primary aspect to Warframe than opening lockers so I'm not sure how you think that is a balanced comparison to make on the issue, but we also don't have a nuke for opening lockers so it's not even a real conflict. If a person in a team wants to open lockers and crates right now odds are they can since there's enough space/locations and enough response time for everyone to have the opportunity to find some. Is that a present issue for you with the game? Being able to open lockers in groups? 

[Cubewano]

8 minutes ago, Vyra said:

What exactly is the problem in here?

v

8 minutes ago, Vyra said:

I myself find it boring if i can't shoot things because everything is dead by the time i aimed at them...sure.

v

9 minutes ago, Vyra said:

Sometime is just feel useless then

that is the problem, and no it isn't some default state of life that co-op has to be the way it is in warframe, it can change and it can improve. this is a co-op game, the standard experience of a co-op mission should be a good one, not one where you feel often useless, or are forced into idle behavior as one person hard carries the group through content with no regard for your experience, it shouldn't be some all or nothing experience based on any single person you match with and so easily tipped over. 

[Vyra]

10 minutes ago, Cubewano said:

v

v

that is the problem, and no it isn't some default state of life that co-op has to be the way it is in warframe, it can change and it can improve. this is a co-op game, the standard experience of a co-op mission should be a good one, not one where you feel often useless, or are forced into idle behavior as one person hard carries the group through content with no regard for your experience, it shouldn't be some all or nothing experience based on any single person you match with and so easily tipped over. 

The Solution can not be to nerf everything just to make 1 person happy.

Coop means both... why would you want to force other to play "your style" when you can avoid them easily?

[Cubewano]

27 minutes ago, Vyra said:

The Solution can not be to nerf everything just to make 1 person happy.

Coop means both... why would you want to force other to play "your style" when you can avoid them easily?

It's to make a healthy co-op experience overall, it's not about a single person in the whole game. 

You can't have a healthy co-op experience that is entirely centered around one single person being able to do everything with no room for others. 

edit: at most this is saying the experiences of one person should not be able to trump that of three others in a group

Edited November 15, 2019 by Cubewano

[BabaPambazuka]

🙄 
Are you getting all the drops and mission rewards?
Is affinity still being shared/your gear still levelling?
Have you tried exploring side rooms and marking rare resources for your squadmates?

Between clans, recruit chat, and friend lists DE gives you every possible resource to deliberately structure squads and roles within them however you like, yet here you are complaining that pub missions are the hilariously-random gameshow/sh1tshow that they inevitably must be.  Anytime I play other than solo or invite-only is when I choose to grind right now for a specific GOAL not some irrelevant kill-ranking ego-stroke, so a nuker on the squad is Christmas In July:  Hallelujah, Let's Get This Loot.

-the ridiculous extremes of effective power difference between players is a core part of what makes this game universe so epic and inspiring
-the single most satisfying perk of advancement I've yet found is eventually building/getting to play a relatively-OP/mission-critical role for random noob squadmates that others once did for me:  Circle Of Life, Virtuous Cycle, diversity of playstyles, etc etc.

When someone even further OP shows up I'm happy to let them lock it all down and start branching out looking for Ayatans, rare containers, and whatnot.  In a game which structurally requires you to play different frames, different gear, in correspondingly different styles in order to advance at all, complaining that you have to adapt on-the-fly to different roles within a rando squad is... precious, at best.

"But but but This Is A Cooperative Game [and somebody cooperated too well for my taste in this random mission]"?
It doesn't sound to me like nukers are the problem that needs fixing.

[BabaPambazuka]

3 hours ago, Cubewano said:

edit: at most this is saying the experiences of one person should not be able to trump that of three others in a group

Agreed.  Do you still respect that principle when the 'one person' is the complainer and the other 3 (nuke and support/wingmen) are happy enough with their roles and rewards that synergy provides?  Especially considering that literally anybody can opt out of that situation at literally any time?

DE already created/coded this entire surreal universe for players to explore and experience however they (in all their vast player/power-level/playstyle variety) choose to, and all these variously-structured experiences are available FOR FREE:  That's more than enough from any developer.  Any player who doesn't use all the tools already available to curate their own particular preferred experience of it isn't being denied gameplay so much as they are refusing to play the whole game.

There's still a guaranteed way to experience all the content and be the primo-protagonist leaderboard-hero of any/every mission, and nukeframe builds aren't keeping anybody from it.  Maybe stop trying to ban one viable/valued playstyle of many just b/c some players (of indeterminate population) can't be bothered to decline it.

[Cubewano]

14 minutes ago, BabaPambazuka said:

Agreed.  Do you still respect that principle when the 'one person' is the complainer and the other 3 (nuke and support/wingmen) are happy enough with their roles and rewards that synergy provides?  Especially considering that literally anybody can opt out of that situation at literally any time?

DE already created/coded this entire surreal universe for players to explore and experience however they (in all their vast player/power-level/playstyle variety) choose to, and all these variously-structured experiences are available FOR FREE:  That's more than enough from any developer.  Any player who doesn't use all the tools already available to curate their own particular preferred experience of it isn't being denied gameplay so much as they are refusing to play the whole game.

There's still a guaranteed way to experience all the content and be the primo-protagonist leaderboard-hero of any/every mission, and nukeframe builds aren't keeping anybody from it.  Maybe stop trying to ban one viable/valued playstyle of many just b/c some players (of indeterminate population) can't be bothered to decline it.

Yes, so long as no player in that group is asserting a level of dominance that is just ousting other players from play that's all fine and dandy, if they're all playing and active and able to engage that what co-op is meant to be about. Again the whole focus is allowing everyone to have a reasonable range, and the option of, engagement. One person having full sway over that shouldn't be. 

And understand none of what I'm saying is to discredit the work DE has done in this game, or to say it is a bad game overall, but that doesn't negate the state of parts of the games balance being flawed, or remove the co-op complications I've been noting, even good games can have shortcomings and complications, and I'd like to image DE would prefer to recognize and improve on those things rather than to just be satisfied with what is and never move further. 

As for being a primo protagonist whatever you call it, I'm sure you can, but I'm not sure any of that is relevant to my points on the co-op experience and how nukes can be harmful to it. 

Edited November 15, 2019 by Cubewano

[Keiyadan]

Am 7.11.2019 um 19:35 schrieb kwlingo:

Oh Sedna, Hydron if a nukers is in the group everyone leaves after first 5 waves. lol This is a real problem we all know is real. 90% kills and everyone goes to eat lunch and come back with mission accomplished. lol I still remember before nuking going into level 20-50 def was a thing of fun, now lucky if you can be in a public going pass 5

do they realy leave because of that ? i remeber the times way back as boring too at times like standing with frost at any given time at the target. if that would be the case why do people on helene stay in open groups up to 40 waves while there is a AOE frame too?

i dont see why nukers should be the problem when it works on different maps most likely it is the exp given out and maxed things that make people leave everyone has a different item levels if they are done with there stuff they leave thats what i say alot of the times and im doing alot of the missions for standing and see many times that i dont want to play hydron at all because anytime they leave so fast wenn i can go to helene where people still play high waves and that with randomes i mean sometimes there are 5wave people too maybe it is an nationality thing

[BabaPambazuka]

You seem to be deliberately missing the point that often nukes nuking with others supporting or just cleaning up loot can be precisely the cooperative playstyle most or all of a squad is satisfied with.  Co-op itself can be expressed in multiple disparate playstyles and squad structures (sometimes within successive waves of the same mission):  Who are you to micromanage precisely what forms it can/cannot take for every squad and every player?

Let players form/join sympathetic clans to develop their own preferred squad tactics.
Let them be specific about LF squadmates in recruit chat.

Let them friend randoms of comparable ability they enjoyed playing with for future missions.

Let them abort whenever they aren't getting what they want from a given random squad whose equally-valid mission priorities are <GASP> different from their own.
Let them SOLO missions whose content they feel they aren't personally experiencing enough of.
Oh wait, every one of the above solutions* is already readily available and abundantly effective.
*to a problem which nukers are demonstrably Not the root of

For someone who decries "asserting a level of dominance that is just ousting other players from play" why is it your solution which requires crippling the sheer scale (and breadth of ludicrous potential) of the entire game itself while denying a significant player population their preferred "range and option of engagement" in certain specific contexts which can be easily avoided?
Do Tell Us More about how one person (or any minority faction, for that matter) should not have full sway over the entire playerbase in such matters...

[Cubewano]

15 hours ago, BabaPambazuka said:

You seem to be deliberately missing the point that often nukes nuking with others supporting or just cleaning up loot can be precisely the cooperative playstyle most or all of a squad is satisfied with.  Co-op itself can be expressed in multiple disparate playstyles and squad structures (sometimes within successive waves of the same mission):  Who are you to micromanage precisely what forms it can/cannot take for every squad and every player?

Let players form/join sympathetic clans to develop their own preferred squad tactics.
Let them be specific about LF squadmates in recruit chat.

Let them friend randoms of comparable ability they enjoyed playing with for future missions.

Let them abort whenever they aren't getting what they want from a given random squad whose equally-valid mission priorities are <GASP> different from their own.
Let them SOLO missions whose content they feel they aren't personally experiencing enough of.
Oh wait, every one of the above solutions* is already readily available and abundantly effective.
*to a problem which nukers are demonstrably Not the root of

For someone who decries "asserting a level of dominance that is just ousting other players from play" why is it your solution which requires crippling the sheer scale (and breadth of ludicrous potential) of the entire game itself while denying a significant player population their preferred "range and option of engagement" in certain specific contexts which can be easily avoided?
Do Tell Us More about how one person (or any minority faction, for that matter) should not have full sway over the entire playerbase in such matters...

Then they aren't "nuking" to the level of dominance I'm pointing out to be an issue, aka the kind of mass coverage instant slaughter that makes aid irrelevant, and you can't pretend that is a present reality because we have the entire CC category dead and beaten because of it.

Again my only conflict is to stages of power where a single player can full well make others entirely irrelevant to stages of play and not able to engage with the content, even when it may not be their intention. As a co-op game that kind of design shouldn't be around, and nobody should be casually running into instances where a single person is quite easily turning off combat for everyone else involved with no level of collaboration or opportunity for others to be involved.

That the current solution as you see requires a concerted effort to avoid casual play and build yourself around specific groups and isolate yourself from the overall play to make co-op healthy just expresses how poor its current state is. You shouldn't have to jump through half a dozen loops, constantly, to assure yourself you're co-op experience in a co-op game won't be completely null and void. And no just placing the burden on players for expecting co-op to actually function well in a co-op game is not a genuine solution, which I hope you realize is effectively what you're trying to push.

In regards to any of this crippling this games potential, please feel free to elaborate on what potential is to had by being able to turn off aspects of gameplay in an instant with ease. So far as I've seen it DE have been making constant compromises and game design sacrifices as a result of nukes presence in the game, not evolutions/expansions.   

 

[kwlingo]

On 2019-11-15 at 10:15 AM, Vyra said:

really there are other problems int his game...and THIS is not one of them.. its an individual problem.. tied to a person.. not the game...

Honestly, DE have been revamping many and possible in the next few reworks on our favorite nuke frames to come. DE has started and Im sure they are going to have more balancing when it comes to Frames, weapons, Melee 3.0. We have seen it with Banshee and Ember nukes and the unsinkable Wukong, Zenistar, Trgirs Prime, meleeing through walls with 20m range BR+CO, Gauss speed and many more. Anything too good only last so long. It's not the nuking in itself, its the entire map clear that is the problem. This is the reason why Catchmoon is so popular and is getting a rework/nerf. DE can see the problem and they will always address the issue. I love my Catchmoon and my riven on it but I cannot change DE's mind that over 50% of us use it over all other secondary weapons.

[Yakhul]

On 2019-11-15 at 2:02 PM, BabaPambazuka said:

🙄 
Are you getting all the drops and mission rewards?
Is affinity still being shared/your gear still levelling?
 

I want to touch those specific 2 points.

About all of the drops and mission Rewards, well, a lot of times, people do not get them, because, say, there is a saryn in your squad in Hydron, nuking everything the moment they spawn. All of the resource and mod drops stay inside the spawn rooms, far away from players reach. You could argue that we can just go at the end of each wave to pick up the resources, but that does not apply to every mission type or tileset. A lot of the drops will be missed in other mission types because of how quick the nuker kills everything, and possibly after it all, him/her being the one RUSHING the others to go to extraction, WITHOUT having picked all of the drops.

Now onto the 2nd point: Affinity. If you are trying to rank up a warframe, then i would understand. But everyone knows the affinity you get, is divided in between all of your current weapons you may be holding in the mission. This is why most of us prefer to run with only 1 weapon equipped to gain the most affinity possible.
But you know, in order to gain the most affinity possible, you NEED TO use the gun to kill things, at least a couple of enemies per wave in hydron would do to maximize the affinity, but if you let your nuker do everything, you barely get to shoot anything, thus, not gaining that extra affinity. You would need 15 waves in Hydron to fully rank a weapon with just letting your nuker do everything, and pretty much, everyone leaves at 10 waves.

[ILOHARTA]

On 2019-11-15 at 6:54 AM, (PS4)CrazyBeaTzu said:

Does anyone remember where the term nuke even comes from? Does anyone remember the Black Mage?

MMOs were always made up of a healer, Damage dealer, some type of thief or rogue, a tank or Paladin, and the black mage.

Is there some new generation of gamers that thinks this stuff just came outta nowhere?

AOE is just as much a part of gaming as single target, cone aoe and energy and health regeneration 

there is an important difference when comparing WF nukers to other games' ones: in WF nukers are completely self sufficient and can do their job regardless of the matchup. In other games, team composition, coordination and synergy are vital components for the success of a mission: most basic example, if the tank can't hold aggro properly, the nuker will die immediately. Same thing for the healer: if you make a wrong move and over-heal, you'll gain aggro and get destroyed in the blink of an eye, condemning to death the entire team.
In Warframe there is no such a thing, and while it offers a wider variety of gaming experiences, it soon comes to a stalemate: the moment everyone can do everything equals everybody is equally useless.

 

[kwlingo]

Actually I found a possible hotfix that is already in the game that may make Nuking frames balanced now. A little of reading on the new melee update and they already placed it in game. Now all they have to do to place the codes onto weapon explosives and frame abilities. Too be honest they all make sense. Even missions like ESO I can go in without a Nuke frame and still maintain 80-90% efficiency. So is map clearing really a necessity now? This is a copy paste from https://warframe.fandom.com/wiki/Melee

Slam Attack

Excalibur performing a slam attack.

Combo	In Air + Aim Downwards + Melee

 

Also known as a Leap Attack. While in mid-air, performing a melee attack while aiming downwards will force the Warframe to slam down at the point of the reticle, dealing radial damage and applying a Status Effect to surrounding enemies, such as stagger, knockdown, lift or elemental procs. Players can also utilize slam attacks to change direction or add momentum while in mid-air, effectively zip-lining themselves to the point of the reticle.

1. Radial damage deals a secondary damage type which diminishes with distance from the point of impact, this damage is not affected by mods except for  Seismic Wave, but will often have a secondary effect (knockdown, stagger, status effects from base damage types, etc.).

Follow Through

Each melee weapon has a Follow Through statistic associated with it that tells what proportion of damage is dealt to successive targets in a single strike. In general, if a single strike hits multiple targets, the amount of damage each target will receive will be:

Proportion of weapon damage = FT^{(n - 1)}

Where n is the order of when an enemy is hit, and FT is the amount of follow-through for the weapon.

For example, Skana has a follow through stat of 0.6 (FT = 0.6). If a single strike of Skana hits three targets, the first target to be hit (n = 1) will be dealt 0.6^{(1 - 1)} = 100% of the total damage, the second to he hit (n = 2) will be dealt 0.6^{(2 - 1)} = 60% of the total damage, and the third (n = 3) will be dealt 0.6^{(3 - 1)} = 36% of the total damage.

 

 

*** Enemies hit closer to caste will have more effect/ damage versus further enemies. Therefore you can still damage the entire map but your abilities wont be room clears not longer and also status effects are weaker the further way from the point of ability cast.

*** I believe DE has already stated that when the Catchmoon is getting the nerf, they will be allowing primary and secondary weapons to have Punch Through but each successive target hit will be having a reduced damage AKA "Follow Through" effect.

Edited November 19, 2019 by kwlingo

[zoffmode]

Nuking frames are simply enjoyable to people (or perhaps they make the tedious playable) and the game's rewards are already balanced around AoE clearing and the like. In short: if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Chances are it'll be another Ember nerf fiasco... and that simple thing took years to fix (with a really convoluted solution too I might say).