Jump to content
Jade Shadows: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Something of extreme importance regarding the suggested enemy balance changes.


Loza03
 Share

Recommended Posts

I like the idea of a faster time to kill (TTK) across the board, both enemies and players. So long as it is done well, it should work out fine. However, there's one serious issue I see that that needs addressing - player health variance.

It is not just that enemies have dramatically varying amounts of effective health, players do as well, even at endgame levels. This presents an issue for more lethal enemies, or any kind of enemy damage balancing. Which end of the spectrum are they more lethal for? Players with 2,000 effective health or lower? Or players with 26,000 plus? Designing for some 10,000 EHP average* won't satisfy either, since Squishies will still be oppressively one-shot and overly punished for mistakes (and thus encouraged to retreat further into the press-4-to-win tactics), and Tanks will still be vastly more durable than what the game is designed to output. 

 

Be it through buffs at the low end, or nerfs at the high end, the playerbase needs to have a tighter range of effective health. As long as the average effective health isn't some ten or twenty thousand EHP away from either extreme, then the same can be true for the average time to kill on the player in any given scenario - and thereby, make it so that squishies can still be vulnerable without punishing them for the slightest mistake, and tanks still be durable without being immortal.

 

* I have no idea if that's the actual average, I just took my squishy build and an Umbral Inaros and compared their EHP with an EHP calculator.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I mean, if you want a really extreme example, compare a tanked up Nidus with 100 stacks of mutation (that's around 6 auto revives if memory serves) standing on his healing rug to a Banshee. Any amount of damage that would make the Nidus go "Hmm, that's something to be concerned about" would kill a Banshee so fast there wouldn't even be a vapor trail left.

Enemies don't lack damage as it is (at least not once they're around 100+), as you state they're facing a scope where their damage is wildly inconsistent in value. Reigning in player durability by cutting down on the effectiveness of EHP boosters is a far better place to go than beefing up enemy damage output.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They should have nerfed enemy damage also. Enemies that can one shot or mow down players in a few seconds without no way of countering will only enforce the tank meta. if DE does nerf EHP and Damage we could see more diversity in Pub Games because tank frames are not mandatory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, DrivaMain said:

They should have nerfed enemy damage also. Enemies that can one shot or mow down players in a few seconds without no way of countering will only enforce the tank meta. if DE does nerf EHP and Damage we could see more diversity in Pub Games because tank frames are not mandatory.

Reducing enemy damage would also make more frames into 'immortals' capable of more or less ignoring all enemies, rendering them desirable for that reason instead.

The variance of player durability is currently so high that no matter what frames they balance damage around there will be a bunch of problems.

4 hours ago, TheGrimCorsair said:

Enemies don't lack damage as it is (at least not once they're around 100+), as you state they're facing a scope where their damage is wildly inconsistent in value. Reigning in player durability by cutting down on the effectiveness of EHP boosters is a far better place to go than beefing up enemy damage output.

Also true. Honestly, as long as player durability is within any kind of predictable range, it doesn't actually matter whether enemy damage is increased or not. It's more about health relative to damage rather than any actual numbers flying around. Consider the likes of Paper Mario, which dropped damage numbers down to single digits. It's the same amount of hits being slung around, just lower numbers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Loza03 said:

Reducing enemy damage would also make more frames into 'immortals' capable of more or less ignoring all enemies, rendering them desirable for that reason instead.

My Rhino, Nidus, and Inaros builds are already functionally immortal against anything up to around level 150. The only thing that can get them killed are Nullifiers and Demolysts. Increasing or reducing enemy damage output really won't impact that much either way

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, -AoN-CanoLathra- said:

My Rhino, Nidus, and Inaros builds are already functionally immortal against anything up to around level 150. The only thing that can get them killed are Nullifiers and Demolysts. Increasing or reducing enemy damage output really won't impact that much either way

I mean, yeah. That's kind of my point.

As well as frames dramatically under the EHP average that everyone is worried about with this potential change, there's a ton of frames who are likely to STILL be more or less immortal in all 'regular' content after the changes. Immortal up to level 120 instead of 150 perhaps, but said 'regular' missions that we encounter only go up to level 100 tops, even in Railjack.

The only way this wouldn't be the case is if they tuned the damage around the effective health of the tanks which would A: Defeat the purpose of them being tanky Warframes in the first place and B: render every other frame in the game at best a very slow, careful experience where they could be one-shot at any moment... or at worse, useless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Loza03 said:

I mean, yeah. That's kind of my point.

As well as frames dramatically under the EHP average that everyone is worried about with this potential change, there's a ton of frames who are likely to STILL be more or less immortal in all 'regular' content after the changes. Immortal up to level 120 instead of 150 perhaps, but said 'regular' missions that we encounter only go up to level 100 tops, even in Railjack.

The only way this wouldn't be the case is if they tuned the damage around the effective health of the tanks which would A: Defeat the purpose of them being tanky Warframes in the first place and B: render every other frame in the game at best a very slow, careful experience where they could be one-shot at any moment... or at worse, useless.

Maybe DE could add an “Anti Tank” enemy. Instead of dealing flat damage, they deal percentage based damage bypassing some Armor and DR. It feels the same against squishies, but it deals a massive damage to tanks. Making tank users think more.

Also, universal shield gating is probably the solution against squishy frames. It already succeeded with Hildryn by protecting her from cheap one shots. Why did DE said it failed again?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, DrivaMain said:

Also, universal shield gating is probably the solution against squishy frames. It already succeeded with Hildryn by protecting her from cheap one shots. Why did DE said it failed again?

I believe they said it didn't make much of a difference preventing one shots (I could be wrong). Looking at how it works in Railjack i can see some issues with it but I am sure DE could rework shields to be more useful if they tried.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the core problem is the years old enemy damage scaling. You had a similar issue back years ago when everybody used CC to avoid getting one hit killed.

Basically enemy damage should have been capped years ago at around L80. Add shield gating, 50% damage reduction during knockdowns to the player(including the getting up animation), 50% damage reduction while being dragged. Make the hook attack actually a attack needs a small wind up and has travel time to it, so the player can avoid it with movement.

Then defensive mods should be 50% static value plus 50% percentage based, what decreases the effect on high EHP frames while the effect on normal frames is increases.

The only tank that is done right gameplay wise is Frost, simply because the tanking is mostly objective or team orientated instead of just a personal benifit. In general tanks should not have more then 5-6k EHP(2.5-3 times of a normal frame) and her abilities should be more team focused, actually drawing agro or providing CC to protect other team members instead of just herself.

Edited by Djego27
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2020-01-18 at 3:30 AM, TheGrimCorsair said:

I mean, if you want a really extreme example, compare a tanked up Nidus with 100 stacks of mutation (that's around 6 auto revives if memory serves) standing on his healing rug to a Banshee. Any amount of damage that would make the Nidus go "Hmm, that's something to be concerned about" would kill a Banshee so fast there wouldn't even be a vapor trail left.

This is exactly the right comparison to make. It is impossible to have a proper conversation on balancing enemy damage when one frame can literally go AFK against high-level enemies and remain near full health (Inaros), while another can parkour at maximum speed every second and still get one-shot by a stray bullet (Banshee). This is only worsened by enemy resistance and immunity to abilities, status, etc., which puts even more emphasis on tanky frames rather than squishy casters. While it is okay, even good for some frames to be tankier than others, the difference in survivability should likely not be more than a factor of three or four, as opposed to the literal dozens of times more EHP some frames can easily have over others right now.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...