(NOT FINISHED, accidental submission) Idk what its called, but i want to reccomend a model thats considered to be a balance for all of warframe content

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

I dont believe DE's intention for creating a warframe, weapon, or enemy was to create it and rework it again later. I believe their intentions, were for everything theyve created to last forever so that they can continue expanding the game and not constantly take steps backwards. The problem is, i dont think this can be done effectively without having an idea of what a balanced warframe, enemy, weapon, companion, etc.. looks like in warframe; and not using this balanced figure to compare with your introduction of new content. Heres how the idea of what im trying to purpose, works:

Lets say Excalibur is what we consider to be the perfectly balanced warframe or the base design of a perfect warframe.

(In other words, im asking you to pretend he is. Imagine that the game "Warframe" as whole, has not been released yet. Pretend we are making the game, and our first warframe creation is excalibur. We're going to use him to determine how we should go about the things we want to happen in the game)

With this, how he performs when using weapons, fighting enemies, moving, durability, etc should all be taken into account when making a new enemy, weapon, warframe, or companion.

 

What i believe this will do is one of two things: prevent weapons like the old Catchmoon from existing, or make all weapons feel as useful as the old Catchmoon. Depending on what DE decides to select the "balance object(s)" of warframe to be, and depending on what players like (aka, considering whether to balance something based on what players like).

Why do i think this?:

 

So remember what i said in the first paragraph about excalibur being our guide for determining how we implement ideas into the game (our balance)? Lets do this now with a random weapon idea, by making the only comparisons that are "possible" between a weapon and Excalibur. Which primarly is damage. Lets pretend our goal, is to ensure that the weapon is not more useful than excaliburs damaging abilities.

Excal's 1st, 3rd, and 4th abilities deal 325, 1,300, and 325 damage respectively, for 1 hit on 1 enemy. Each ability requires energy to activate them, and this energy is pretty limited.

Our Random Weapon deals 8,000 damage per second, passes through a large group of enemies, has a 1 second reload, and has so much ammo that you never have to worry about running out if it.

 As of right now, if this is set and stone, and if there are no enemies in the game that alter the damage potential of the warframe or weapon, we have failed to accomplish our goal. Excalibur is going to need his abilities to have additional purposes in order to make his abilities more useful than the "Random weapon" if we want warframe abilities to have scenarios where they are better than using the weapon.

Or

We nerf the weapon to a point where its not useless, but not too much stronger than Excalibur.

Questions/Feedback all written as questions: 

Question: Isn't basing balance on what players like, too much work?

Answer: Its a lot of work, but whether its Too much work isnt clear yet.

Regardless, nothing worth potential great value is easy anyway. The creation of warframe as a whole is a Lot more difficult, more time consuming, more complex then what im suggesting yet it was made for the potential value it had to the developers. Proof enough that no idea should be disgarded based on Estimated difficulty alone

 

Im sure most of us have heard by now that "Sometimes the worlds greatest miracles, happen by accident". Thus is my point about balancing based off of what people like. It doesnt mean throw your ideas of how the game should go, out the window and do what other people like; it just means that you should always keep an open eye for the "miracles" (aka, things good for entertainment which is a requirement for a video games survivability). Your players like something a lot, it maybe a sign of something entertaining that your game could keep in one way or another, while still maintaing your image of what ypu want the game to be like; big picture-wise.

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[peterc3]

This seems like an express train to massive number creep. Basing balance on what players prefer is insanity.

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

16 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

This seems like an express train to massive number creep. Basing balance on what players prefer is insanity.

The balance is only to be placed on what players like in the case of you messing up with your original balance, like chroma, saryn, real old frost, and the catchmoon seem to have proof of a mess up. Rather than completely nerf, keep some of the things that players liked and find a new balance. A combination of original balance with the new 1.

Or if you want to nerf something, nerf it the next day with an announcement.

There will definitely be about 2-5 pages of numbers for thinking about all of this, that will roughly take them a day or 2, but it keeps the devs from destroying a players loved playstyle that theyve been using for years. 

The idea wasnt finished though, i was thinking as i was typing and for some reason my phone's keyboard disappeared and made me hit the "submit topic" button and i was only like half way done with my idea that i was formulating. I was attempting to see if i could figure out how to balance the frames above, and how long it would take to do the math to ensure a balanced warframe would be released.

 

The beautiful thing about it is once you have the ability ideas, though the math is long its also straight forward. Its like adding 5969699 to 4957884, 100 times in different variations. A lot of numbers to work through but straight forward in the sense of the ability to come up with estimated time frame of when youll be done with all the numbers. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[peterc3]

1 minute ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

it keeps the devs from destroying a players loved playstyle that theyve been using for years. 

If a playstyle is seen as bad for the game, it is bad for the game. Age of that playstyle is irrelevant.

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

4 hours ago, peterc3 said:

If a playstyle is seen as bad for the game, it is bad for the game. Age of that playstyle is irrelevant.

Yes but you cant blindly pick what is considered to be bad for a game. Hence why im making a post about setting a balance.

The catchmoon was seen as bad for the game because a large percentage of the playerbase was using it (this is what we were told).

The weapon was certainly overpowered in my opinion, but my problem is what they used to determine this, which was usage balance or comparison rather than a performance one. 

This is bad, and heres an example of why its bad: "A lot of people try to hurt others, a lot of people try to help others, but just because a lot of people are doing these things doesn't mean you should go out and try to stop them from doing it because what if it's good like the people trying to help other people example i just gave? You need more than usage/participation for determining whats bad and whats good"

Games are made for entertainment, a large amount of your player base is playing with something thats entertaining them. Im not going to say that everything about what theyre finding to be entertaining is always going to be good for the game (i was here when old e-gate was like an "all you can eat buffe), but sometimes it may be. Try to balance the game around it, or ensure it was never created in the first place.

 

Now

The reason why age of the playstyle holds value in a game, is because it sets the way people think the game is going to go. So of course, when you change this too much, you create a huge amount of lack of trust in your players expectations. People, without question, will be less likely to spend money on your game because of this, especially if the changes are "too great". Investment issues arise in players and evidence of this is shown througout this playerbase commonly.

 

Im thinking a new way of presenting ideas to warframe needs to be added, a new way deciding whether something is worth sticking with, changing, or abandoning. Starting with this

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[keikogi]

3 hours ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

I think the best solution is select a new warframe to be considered as balanced, after seeing which of the 2 warframes the players favor more. So lets say the things people like about saryn is her damage spread and eventual killing potential, corrosive damage, and range of her abilities, making them favor her more than excal. Since they favor her more, we'll put her on the left side of the scale, and try to balance 

This kind of focus on balance tends to be negative for game health

It leads to madness.

Something having a low play rate does not necessarily correlate with it sucking. It might be a mater of it being extremely boring or hard to obtain.

Edit: Also meta shifts tend to chamge popularity of frames quite bit , trinity was one the most requested frames for premade groupe , now she is relegated to eidolon hunts. She did not suffer any direct nerfs , what killed her was operators became able to supply both energy and health. 

Edited December 23, 2019 by keikogi

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

39 minutes ago, keikogi said:

This kind of focus on balance tends to be negative for game health

It leads to madness.

Well, too much of one thing also negatively impacts a game; more than balance im willing to say. Imagine if the devs only focused on warframes rather than quest. Or quest over warframes to the point where all we had were the starter warframes.

Thus why I beg to disagree. We also have games like Call of Duty that uses balance to help keep all weapons feeling useful. And the game is extremely popular

Also a game called "Devil May Cry" uses this to determine how challenging content will be for players, also a fairly popular game.

Id need to be given example of where balance has failed a game i think, to understand where youre coming from

 

I could be using the wrong wording or need an adjective. Like "deviating balanace" or "shades of black & white".

Edited December 23, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

2 hours ago, keikogi said:

Something having a low play rate does not necessarily correlate with it sucking. It might be a mater of it being extremely boring or hard to obtain

And yea, says the same thing im saying but with a low play rate instead of high.

Wait is this your example? This is what i considered to be balance. Its what i mean about building around a balanced item

For instance, a pretend kubrow deals 100 damage, has 100 shield and health. What i mean by building around it is giving another kubrow 150 damage, 100 shield, and 50 health.

Notice that the number units add up to 300 for both kubrows. The point is that it adds up to the measured or estimated "balance"

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[keikogi]

32 minutes ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

Wait is this your example? This is what i considered to be balance. Its what i mean about building around a balanced item

For instance, a pretend kubrow deals 100 damage, has 100 shield and health. What i mean by building around it is giving another kubrow 150 damage, 100 shield, and 50 health.

Let me give a really simple example of why stuff can't have the same play ratio. 

Let's compare kubrows and kavats.

Kubrows deal damage , kavats buff players and generate resources.

You can make kubrows popular by just buffing their damage. But if you want them to be as popular as kavats they would need to deal so much damage that the player can afford to just play a defense mission by choosing inaros and allowing his kubrow to do all the damage.

If You just rework kubrows so they provide buffs and resourses they loose their identity.

Also there is stuff that should not be balanced at all. Weapons for examples should not be balanced , we should have a progession curve and high end option for each category. Also stuff like the shedu should be better than usual.

Edit: typos

Edited December 23, 2019 by keikogi

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

53 minutes ago, keikogi said:

Let me give a really simple example of why stuff can't have the same play ratio. 

Let's compare kubrows and kavats.

Kubrows deal damage , kavats buff players and generate resources.

You can make kubrows popular by just buffing their damage. But if you want them to be as popular as kavats they would need to deal so much damage that the player can afford to just play a defense mission by choosing inaros and allowing his kubrow to do all the damage.

If You just rework kubrows so they provide buffs and resourses they loose their identity.

Also there is stuff that should not be balanced at all. Weapons for examples should not be balanced , we should have a progession curve and high end option for each category. Also stuff like the shedu should be better than usual.

Edit: typos

For this, There are other factors determining what balance is. The balance of the kavat is that it provides an extremely satisfying reward at uncertain times, and that the rewards dont cause you to sit back and do nothing; basically saying the balance or max potential of the kavat  is held back by things to make it balanced.

Simply giving kubrows an insane damage buff is just a straight upgrade from the kavat for most (if not all) of warframe content. The reward is powerful, largely reliable, and allows you to sit back and do nothing where as the kavat only has 1 of these benefits (powerful reward).

So something that would seem to be more fitting is giving a kubrow a temporary burst of insane damage or an insane attack. For example, giving the dog 20% chance every 20 seconds to unleash a powerful bark that knocks a lot enemies off their feet and disarms them. Or when their owner's falls below 10% of their health, the kubrow gains a temporary huge damage buff, and killed enemies by the kubrow garuntee a health orb drop.

Powerful rewards but require the player to be active, and the abilities arent the most reliable at all times

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, keikogi said:

Edit: Also meta shifts tend to chamge popularity of frames quite bit , trinity was one the most requested frames for premade groupe , now she is relegated to eidolon hunts. She did not suffer any direct nerfs , what killed her was operators became able to supply both energy and health. 

This a good point but operators are too op by all means. Theyre like an extension of the warframe, easily saving you from death in times of need. I remember when they first came out and i was just thinking like "i couldnt die before but now im never dying".

Theres like, no risk going into operator mode. I honestly dont see the point in DE not just making the operators abilities as passives with them being so easy, so so easy, to use when needed. I mean seriously, operators buffed all players to near invincible levels once you set the operator up. 

Ive actually been wondering if im the only one who thinks this.

These "meta shifts" require an idea of what overpowered is to not create something so overpowered like operator's. I think it was far too easy to sense their overpoweredness from their release date. And the power they came with id argue was completely unnecessary.

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[Xepthrichros]

17 hours ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

Lets say Excalibur is what we consider to be the perfectly balanced warframe or the base design of a perfect warframe.

...

I think the best solution is select a new warframe to be considered as balanced, after seeing which of the 2 warframes the players favor more. So lets say the things people like about saryn is her damage spread and eventual killing potential, corrosive damage, and range of her abilities, making them favor her more than excal. Since they favor her more, we'll put her on the left side of the scale, and try to balance.

No and no. There's more to this than just 2 frames being compared side by side in terms of numbers and mechanics.

What is overlooked by people is there is also a difference in obtainability. One of them is a frame you pick for free at the start of the game. One of them is a frame you get near the end of the star chart after grinding through victory points in the Grineer arena system and fighting Kela multiple times. Due to the difference in availability, and to maintain a sense of game progression, which there definitely is in warframe (because of the mods system, and now DE has confirmed it with Intrinsics in Railjack - this game has a leveling up mechanic and nobody can say otherwise). It's not power creep. It's power progression, a gameplay feature.

When you want to "balance" future frames, or rework present frames, I think one has to consider where that particular frame stands in terms of how they are obtained. This is why some frames like Baruuk, Hildryn, Harrow, or Grendel, are overlooked and ignored by most people. They are not terrible frames. But, the utility/power they offer does not match the difficulty (even if the gameplay is not difficult, the grind or RNG can be tiring to people) in obtaining them. Because of this, they are not as often used. And this is made "worse" if a person already has access to another easier-to-obtain frame which has more utility or kill potential than the newer frame that's locked behind some new multi-layer grind/RNG wall - then the question becomes: why bother with the new thing when the new thing is a side-grade or even less, a down-grade, but more hassle to obtain? The new thing then becomes a goal only for those hardcore completionists, or fashion frame.

Edited December 24, 2019 by Xepthrichros

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, Xepthrichros said:

No and no. There's more to this than just 2 frames being compared side by side in terms of numbers and mechanics.

What is overlooked by people is there is also a difference in obtainability. One of them is a frame you pick for free at the start of the game. One of them is a frame you get near the end of the star chart after grinding through victory points in the Grineer arena system and fighting Kela multiple times. Due to the difference in availability, and to maintain a sense of game progression, which there definitely is in warframe (because of the mods system, and now DE has confirmed it with Intrinsics in Railjack - this game has a leveling up mechanic and nobody can say otherwise). It's not power creep. It's power progression, a gameplay feature.

When you want to "balance" future frames, or rework present frames, I think one has to consider where that particular frame stands in terms of how they are obtained. This is why some frames like Baruuk, Hildryn, Harrow, or Grendel, are overlooked and ignored by most people. They are not terrible frames. But, the utility/power they offer does not match the difficulty (even if the gameplay is not difficult, the grind or RNG can be tiring to people) in obtaining them. Because of this, they are not as often used. And this is made "worse" if a person already has access to another easier-to-obtain frame which has more utility or kill potential than the newer frame that's locked behind some new multi-layer grind/RNG wall - then the question becomes: why bother with the new thing when the new thing is a side-grade or even less, a down-grade, but more hassle to obtain? The new thing then becomes a goal only for those hardcore completionists, or fashion frame.

Yea i dont think youve said anything that i disagree with here, i chose two warframes and 2 stats to compare for simplicitys sake

The amount of grind, difficulty of game content, etc

All requires something that balances it out AKA making the grind worth it, and something that isnt too rewarding like giving everyone grendal, hildryn, yada yada yada, for spending one credit. Thats obviously two easy and unbalanced

They have to be balanced based off of what you want your game to be.

 

This is part of the reason why im saying the idea isnt finished. Some times when i explain complex problems with simplified version of the problem, people get me though this is rare lol. I was (and still am) going to provide ways to help people connect the dots to prevent confusion like i think you might be feeling

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[selig_fay]

I can't endorse any nerf weapons or buffs skills to OP States. The game already has a problem in that players prefer to use only abilities and do not care about their equipment. It's bad for the game. On the other hand, who could blame players for the fact that the weapon has very poor synergy with the abilities of the frame. 

But there are some interesting synergies that players ignore. Ash blade storm for example. Many complain about how uncomfortable it is now, but you can just equip a dog and special mods and it slash nuck for 30 meters every 15 seconds. And you can make an invisible dog, which will halve the cost of bladestorm. Or harpoon weapons that allow me to position enemies for Garuda altars. Or ferrox, which goes well with Titania Latern.

Want to interest players weak weapons? Make the OP synergy with the frame. Even for a single frame, the weapon would already make sense. I think it's called gamedesign.

Edited December 24, 2019 by zhellon

[peterc3]

19 hours ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

Yes but you cant blindly pick what is considered to be bad for a game.

Just because you can't see something, doesn't make DE blind.

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

16 minutes ago, peterc3 said:

Just because you can't see something, doesn't make DE blind.

I never said they were is what you have to pay attention to inorder for you to grasp the point in me saying that.

I thought it was obvious that im directing the word at the quote. It was the first time DE really showed us part of what they use to determine if something needs a nerf or not. 

It was the equivalence of someone saying that "We are not allowing you to drive a car ever again because you were involved in an accident". 

My argument is that something else should be presented or be done to determine said consequences.

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[peterc3]

1 minute ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

I never said they were is what you have to pay attention to inorder for you to grasp the point in me saying that.

I thought it was obvious that im directing the comment at the quote. It was the time DE finally decided to show us a part of w

You are assuming they don't know what to balance against. You are assuming they are just blindly throwing numbers into the game. You are assuming they are blind. Given your suggestion is to balance against what is popular with players, you are demonstrating they are not the blind ones.

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, peterc3 said:

You are assuming they don't know what to balance against

True. Infact, currently, i dont even think they have a selected thing to balance against. I think operators, vauban, ember, chroma, catchmoon, etc, being created and reworked to such great extents is proof enough that this assumption is reasonable.

1 hour ago, peterc3 said:

You are assuming they are just blindly throwing numbers into the game.

Not completely but slightly. Saryn spores are being reworked because of how op they are. The problem is, based on the description of her abilities alone, i found her spores to be obviously overpowered from the day she was given such potential. Didnt even require me to play her. Just comparing her to other frames potential against enemies was more than enough.

Then the catchmoon. If that wasnt considered as blind number pick idk what is. Their is a significant power difference from it and the average secondary weapon, where a simple compare and contrast would have prevented the undeseried result im almost certain of.

1 hour ago, peterc3 said:

Given your suggestion is to balance against what is popular with players, you are demonstrating they are not the blind ones.

The original example i gave with Saryn and Excalibur i think did demonstrate what youre saying. Not everything players like is balanced for example old "e-gate" mission.

I was trying to get at the idea of "some miracles happen by accident" and i couldnt find the right wording for an example of it using warframe.

I was aiming for something like the devs removing excals superjump to balance around the new bullet jump mechanic favored by all. Bullet jumping was over powered, unbalanced, BUT fun! The fun aspect of it is what im saying should be added to the.. "balance"

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[peterc3]

1 hour ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

I think operators, vauban, ember, chroma, catchmoon, etc, being created and reworked to such great extents is proof enough that this assumption is reasonable.

It's not. That's the entire point. That assumption is not reasonable and you aren't trying to create the logical steps to make it reasonable.

1 hour ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

I was aiming for something like the devs removing excals superjump to balance around the new bullet jump mechanic favored by all.

Super jump was removed because few, if any, people used it. It just did not fit into his design. Bullet Jump resulted from the universal use of coptering, making a handful of melee weapons being used exclusively for the fact you could get the most distance and speed out of them for something entirely unrelated to meleeing enemies, as well as complete invalidation of any sort of level design.

You're conflating two events and not proving any sort of relationship beyond your own assumption.

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, peterc3 said:

It's not. That's the entire point. That assumption is not reasonable and you aren't trying to create the logical steps to make it reasonable.

Im not going to continue this conversation, if all youre going to say to my reasoning is "its not" without providing to support as to why its not.

If you dont have something to balance your content off of, then what will happen?

Exactly whats been happening. A constant state of "reworks" (Do we atleast agree on this sentence? If not i got truck loads evidence to back it up just let me know)

However its not concrete proof that DE isnt balancing "everything" they release, off of something. There could be other factors

Therefore its considered "possible" instead of "fact" because of uncertainty

Allowing us to use the possibility as an "assumption" reasonably based on the very definition of what the word assumption means.

Thus why im not going to argue this unless you show youre reasoning as to how this isnt a reasonable assumption. I mean by definition of reasonable and assumption, this fits it completely?

Reasonable Assumption isnt Confirmation

1 hour ago, peterc3 said:

Super jump was removed because few, if any, people used it. It just did not fit into his design. Bullet Jump resulted from the universal use of coptering, making a handful of melee weapons being used exclusively for the fact you could get the most distance and speed out of them for something entirely unrelated to meleeing enemies, as well as complete invalidation of any sort of level design.

Youre right about super jump, it was coptering that got changed that provided in example of a "miracle by accident" that i was looking for. Rather than removing it, they made it better and added it to everything. A new "balance" was created off the fun coptering offered, and spam coptering was an unintentional use. 

1 hour ago, peterc3 said:

You're conflating two events and not proving any sort of relationship beyond your own assumption

I cant make sense of what youre trying to say by this quote

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

4 hours ago, zhellon said:

The game already has a problem in that players prefer to use only abilities and do not care about their equipment. It's bad for the game

Currently they do because of the huge amount if energy supply. Using your ultimate in warframe is absurdly easy to obtain.

The old benefit of weapons was that they help you kill enemies so that you can get energy, as getting energy wasnt an easy task without frames like trinity. Now its more reliance on your operator and energy efficent, damaging warframe abilities for energy; resulting in far less focus on weaponry.

4 hours ago, zhellon said:

Want to interest players weak weapons? Make the OP synergy with the frame. Even for a single frame, the weapon would already make sense. I think it's called gamedesign.

Yes, we agree. Youre describing what imean by balance

How do you make a weak weapon and powerful abilities equally useful (balanced) without making the weapon deal more damage? Add usefulness to it with synergy

Game design is too broad of a word, it consist of many things, balance being one of them. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[keikogi]

4 hours ago, zhellon said:

But there are some interesting synergies that players ignore. Ash blade storm for example. Many complain about how uncomfortable it is now, but you can just equip a dog and special mods and it slash nuck for 30 meters every 15 seconds. And you can make an invisible dog, which will halve the cost of bladestorm. Or harpoon weapons that allow me to position enemies for Garuda altars. Or ferrox, which goes well with Titania Latern.

Want to interest players weak weapons? Make the OP synergy with the frame. Even for a single frame, the weapon would already make sense. I think it's called gamedesign.

Do you know why utility weapons are largely ignored ? Probably comes down to weapon switch time. Weapon switch time is so bad in warframe that switching weapons reduces tour brust dps. Also it just feels bad playing an incredible agile warframe that for some reasons takes what feels like 5 seconds to switch weapons ( depending on your host it might take that long ).

Because of that weapons combo between weapons or weapons and skills are ignored.

Edit: just a explanation you can't have a utility weapon and use it for set up , than fall back to a damage dealing weapon because that takes to much time.

19 minutes ago, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

Currently they do because of the huge amount if energy supply. Using your ultimate in warframe is absurdly easy to obtain.

The old benefit of weapons was that they help you kill enemies so that you can get energy, as getting energy wasnt an easy task without frames like trinity. Now its more reliance on your operator and energy efficent, damaging warframe abilities for energy; resulting in far less focus on weaponry.

The problem really is the energy system is quite fundamentally broken , it is to restrictive for new players and effectivelyly inexistente for veterans.

Made a post a while ago about that 

Did not fly well with the community but I think even dough my proposal had it's flaws it was better what we currently have.

As far as using data for balance , this is way harder than it feels have a look at this article about league of legends 

https://nexus.leagueoflegends.com/en-us/2019/05/dev-champion-balance-framework/

Also there was talk about there is stuff is purposely kept inpopular because they don't want that play style to be part of the usual player experience. For example , DE guted the zenistar on the melee rework because they did not like the place kill zone , go invisibly play style it promoted.

Edited December 24, 2019 by keikogi

[(PSN)CommanderC2121]

On 2019-12-23 at 2:37 PM, (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII said:

I dont believe DE's intention for creating a warframe, weapon, or enemy was to create it and rework it again later. I believe their intentions, were for everything theyve created to last forever so that they can continue expanding the game and not constantly take steps backwards.

DE had always held the belief that warframe was to be an ever evolving game. Trying to reason that you could make something to last infinitely is honestly foolhardy and just asking for issues. 

Part of the reason that warframe is so enjoyable is the amount of customization you can achieve. Trying to therefore limit  all forms of damage to equal the exact same output would do nothing but hurt the variety of the game. Does this mean somethings are left behind? Sure. But is it for the betterment of the game as a whole that nee things are released that vary from other iterations of things? Yes

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

1 hour ago, (PS4)CommanderC2121 said:

DE had always held the belief that warframe was to be an ever evolving game

True

1 hour ago, (PS4)CommanderC2121 said:

Trying to reason that you could make something to last infinitely is honestly foolhardy and just asking for issues. 

I can name many games that nailed this and have not come in contact with issues for years with the specific thing they have chosen not to change. You can go to something simple as a game of chest, or as complex as a game like Minecraft and Assassins Creed.

1 hour ago, (PS4)CommanderC2121 said:

Part of the reason that warframe is so enjoyable is the amount of customization you can achieve.

Without question! Its why i LOVE it

1 hour ago, (PS4)CommanderC2121 said:

Trying to therefore limit  all forms of damage to equal the exact same output would do nothing but hurt the variety of the game

First of all, "balance" doesnt mean lacking variety. For instance, if you need damage and crowd control: you can reach this balance by giving one warframe both things or split it between 2 warframes, split it between 3, 4, 5, 1000 ect.... variety will be equally as unlimited.

Youre asking for the potential for a weapon with the ability to 1shot anything at any level with no help, to be added to warframe tomorrow by throwing balance out of the window. I think DE lacks a sense of balance but thats just ridiculous man.. balance is important

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII

[(PSN)Frost_Nephilim]

2 hours ago, keikogi said:

As far as using data for balance , this is way harder than it feels have a look at this article about league of legends 

The discussion as a whole isnt simple by any means, i agree. 

The link you sent, again it factors "usage" into the equation of determining balance. I strongly disagree with this method.

You can use usage to guess if something may need looking at, but it shouldnt lead to the ultimate decsion of nerfing or buffing said item. Im saying that the true reason something should be nerfed or buffed, is if its actually "overpowered" compared to your balanced charecter or weapon design.

Why? Because usage sometimes comes to just preference, sometimes the things being used is what makes the game entertaining while other things kill the game, and sometimes its because of the timing the thing was introduced.

It can be any one of those, or something else, and have Nothing to do with an unbalance of power.

 

Whats bad game design, is a situation where a hundred thousand people like playing as something, thats not much stronger than most other things, and it gets nerfed because we loved it too much because of our preference, rather than the thing being stronger than most things in the game (overpowered).

Might as well take away our ability to wear the color black if all youre going to focus on is usage.

 

Edited December 24, 2019 by (PS4)IIFrost_GhostII