@DE the nerf Warframe NEEDS, but players don't want!

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

11 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Which is irrelevant to the point, given that the point is whether you said what you said, which you did. Even you admit here you played her terribly, confirming the pertinence of my original criticism and invalidating your knee-jerk whining to it.

Hey another personal attack. Actually, I was just playing her so you would use logic to understand that almost every example of Hard CC prevents the enemy from hitting you, and that being hit by enemies For all you know, My video was me  casting chaos on a single enemy and showing it completely disregarding chaos and shooting me. Has nothing to do about playing bad. It has everything to do to proving a fact. 

Chaos makes the enemy confused. Confused enemies can shoot other enemies. If there is no other unit, and you are the only enemy, the confusion doesn't do anything, and you are shot regardless. Team fire really isn't a thing without said team. 

14 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Thank you for stating an obvious fact nobody had contested to begin with. The question was whether the CC would be hard or soft based on the definitions being used.

Maybe listen next time several people clarify to you the nature of an ability. Something that took you like? 20 posts, and 3-4 people before it finally stuck? 

15 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Sure, but a weapon is not its DPS, it is also the entire rest of its gameplay, which you're conspicuously ignoring. The fact that you're intentionally limiting yourself purely to paper DPS is what is sinking your point here, and what explains the disconnect between your attempts here and reality.

No, this is you once again shifting the argument. The weapons function in practice and in use identical. The kuva blows up where it lands, killing everything, the lenz blows up where it hits, attempting to kill everything. 

Neither weapon acts vastly different. One has cluster bombs, the other has a 6 meter wide bubble. Both arrows hit an area, both weapons are crit based.  Just the bramma is functionally superior in nearly every aspect. Also, a weapon is very much its dps. The Tigris, The Daikyu, The Gallatine, The Fragor, and several other weapons are only that weapon because of its dps. 

WIth how far you have shifted the argument, from denying the Bramma's performance? I feel like I could be in China. Don't even pretend to not be dishonest. You are just looking for any excuse to not say "The Bramma is the superior bow." The shadow stalker just invaded my Adaro. I didn't even see the damage numbers on him. The Bramma literally deleted him. 

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

1 minute ago, CopperBezel said:

The two of you seemed to agree earlier that the Tigris was the best weapon in the game based on DPS alone. Do you have any particular reason to think that the Lenz might be better than the Bramma despite its lesser DPS?

I do not think that ANYMORE. But for the sake of your argument I will play along with this lol. 

I just heard Stalker vanish into another dimention. I don't think I have ever one shot him before. 

[CopperBezel]

That's hilarious. XD

Believe me, I'd normally be the last one to reduce weapons to their DPS. There are a lot of factors that influence how a weapon plays. I avoid shotguns because 25% sprint speed is not trivial and directly translates to damage I don't take, and weapons that have to be scoped to function well have a very specific role for me. Hell, the spool-up inaccuracy on the Tenora would kill it for me if it wasn't affected by fire rate mods. But here we're comparing, as you said, two weapons that are almost identical mechanically, and one has better numbers, so it shouldn't be so hard. = ] 

[Teridax68]

22 minutes ago, BloodyEy3 said:

Partially RNG-dependet is the keyword !!! ---> it still has an option to kill you --> soft cc

This isn't part of the original definition you gave, though, where soft CC is predicated upon partially reducing a target's ability to act. Chaos, by contrast, is about having a large chance to make the enemy not act against you at all: are we therefore establishing the distinction here based on the range of actions affected, or on the reliability of the effect?

23 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:

Teridax, what exactly do you feel is going to be so different in practice in how the Lenz and Bramma play? Because you started by saying that Hunter Munitions was a Simulacrum mod, which, you know, fine, it does in theory have a delayed kill because it's Bleed, so you do in theory have to play differently around the enemies that you don't one-shot. But now you're disputing the claim that the Bramma isn't a better Lenz, and that that is based on something to do with the Simulacrum. Which I think was for the purposes of proving that the Bramma isn't an example of power creep, correct?

The two of you seemed to agree earlier that the Tigris was the best weapon in the game based on DPS alone. Do you have any particular reason to think that the Lenz might be better than the Bramma despite its lesser DPS?

Have you played the two weapons? My point here is that this entire comparison being made has currently been largely based off the Simulacrum, when in practice the Lenz is significantly more reliable and less likely to inflict self-damage, due to its specifically designed counter-mechanic. Meanwhile, as you have no doubt seen by the countless people blowing themselves up shortly after the new Lich update, if you take the Bramma into most of those same spaces, you're going to have a bad time. This is but one of the examples of how paper DPS is not a complete measurement of a weapon's power.

Oh, and now that you've decided to reinsert yourself into this argument, how about this part of my last post that you decided not to answer:

On 2020-02-25 at 6:26 PM, Teridax68 said:

I'm not quite sure why we're still unclear on what constitutes horizontal vs. vertical power here, given that clarification was already given long ago, but just so that there's strictly no ambiguity:

• Horizontal power = sidegrades, or alterations to existing gameplay. Purely horizontal power poses no change to the player's overall strength, but provides additional choices and gameplay.
• Vertical power = upgrades, or enhancements to one's power. Purely vertical power poses no change to the player's gameplay, but alters their overall strength.

Typically, a power-neutral addition to one's customization options is going to feature some sort of tradeoff for whichever benefits it provides. Augments provide a benefit but no tradeoff in power other than the relative benefit of slotting in another mod, which is why they also have a vertical component (they're not power-neutral), but that is not really all that relevant to discussion, because there is no reason why DE would add power-neutral mods in a modding system currently structured to offer upgrades, and not sidegrades. What I like about horizontal power is that, as I hope you agree, it tends to enhance depth and diversity of gameplay by giving us a greater variety of things to do: this can be completely different forms of gameplay, as is the case when we choose one frame or weapon over another, or variations upon the same core gameplay, as is the case when one augments an ability.

By contrast, what I dislike about vertical power is that, on its own, it provides no benefit to gameplay, and in fact makes it worse by imbalancing it, and forcing the rest of the game to adjust in order to maintain the same level of challenge. If the player gets double damage but enemies don't get double health (which would just bring us back to the same place, so no real progression there), the game becomes that much easier, and that's not good because it creates a backwards difficulty curve, where the game is at its hardest at the start and gets less challenging and interesting as the player progresses. This is arguably the case with Warframe, give or take some bumps and curves along the road, because its difficulty systems fail to adequately keep us in check. This isn't to say that there is no benefit whatsoever to vertical power, because it is clearly an easy way to make a player feel like they've progressed, but as pointed out already, horizontal power achieves this as well, and Warframe is in fact a game where the larger and more durable part of the player's progression does in fact come from accumulating more options via warframes and weapons. Some increases in horizontal power will inevitably carry a cost in vertical power too, as is the case when we unlock new systems entirely, but then again, I do think it is worth framing vertical power here as a cost to be carefully worked around, rather than a benefit to dole out unthinkingly.

Sure, but again, that "something" is already addressed better by other things. We continue trying to obtain warframes even when they're not as strong as the ones we own, and the same goes for weapons. Our MR is not based on our power, but on how many frames, weapons, etc. we've collected and played in the game, and MR itself provides no increase to our combat power that we cannot obtain by simply ranking things up: our key signifier of progression is therefore our options, not our raw statistical strength.

Okay, and this shows that one needs to go through some degree of abstraction and mental gymnastics to reconcile this system with how we're being presented elsewhere. We both seem to be in agreement as well that the game could stand to be streamlined significantly as well, and that its own progression over time hasn't been perfect. Given that Warframe has a long history of reinventing itself, I wouldn't say a mod rework that aligns itself if only in part with what's being discussed here would ever be completely out of the question. It would, in fact, not even be the first modding system overhaul the game has had.

Seeing as you're apparently no longer done with me, this might be a good opportunity to get back on track into productive discussion.

26 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Hey another personal attack.

I don't understand how you expect to get any different response by repeating yourself here. You've been caught lying, full stop. Producing the same excuses ad nauseam will not change this.

26 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Maybe listen next time several people clarify to you the nature of an ability. Something that took you like? 20 posts, and 3-4 people before it finally stuck? 

Oh hey, another instance of you lashing out when you have nothing to say in your defense. Just accept your interjection was pointless.

26 minutes ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

No, this is you once again shifting the argument.

It isn't, though, it is your own attempt to shift the conversation onto pure paper DPS that itself constitutes an attempt to shift the argument, as the discussion from the very start was whether the Lenz or the Kuva Bramma was better.

[BloodyEy3]

vor 39 Minuten schrieb Teridax68:

This isn't part of the original definition you gave, though, where soft CC is predicated upon partially reducing a target's ability to act. Chaos, by contrast, is about having a large chance to make the enemy not act against you at all: are we therefore establishing the distinction here based on the range of actions affected, or on the reliability of the effect?

again: "Crowd controls are grouped into one of two categories depending on whether or not the effect removes total control of the player's character. Hard CC completely removes all control of a character, while soft CC only partially removes it."

rng makes it automatically partially !

if the probablity is 100% there is no rng envolved, the enemy then has no control of who he gets to attack. --> mindcontrol target for example.

--> example slow 50% slow, still a slow, 99% slow ? still a slow, 100% slow --> animation is slowed down infitly --> no animation happening (there is a huge differnece in value between 99,99999999% and 99,9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

thats why 0% and 100% (absolutes) are often classified differntly then everything inbetween, as its "absolute".

a weapon having 0% will never crit (naturally) and weapon having 100% crit (will never not crit, naturally)

that the enemy can still attack you depending on ur aggro lvl  (whatever that depends on) to an enemy making it more likely or less likely (rng/ probability/ chance) that it will attack you. Disqualifies it for hard cc.

with chaos active it does not destinguish between allies and foes. he attacks whoever is closest, or has highest aggro (again however it may work). its him vs all (but he is not forced to attack 1 side).

just think in absolutes to make it easier. since there is only yes and no but an ability can have both compartments.

Completly remove all control --> pretty absolute if you ask me

partially removes it --> not so absolut --> since its only categorized in soft and hard, so there is no medium cc, while hard cc requirement is an "absolute" statement --> everything that is not hard cc would automatically become soft cc

thats how that defintion works. you can be unhappy with it or feel its a dumb definition as it doesnt give the direct value for the cc itself. but value is often sth which is affected by perspective. maybe you value enemies shooting each other more then another guy values the enemies general action being slowed down.

Its ur own value. the definition is not affected by personal value. If u want to express ur value of that use "strong" "weak".

• nyx cc is pretty strong
• nova cc is pretty strong
• saryn cc is pretty weak

those are setences about the perspective and value (for myself) of that effect not about the category of that effect.

• the intial part of nyx chaos ability is hard cc. 2nd part is soft cc
• nova cc is soft cc
• saryn cc is hard cc

those are sentences about the category of cc.

do not missjudge hard cc for strong cc or soft cc for weak cc

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by BloodyEy3

[Teridax68]

4 minutes ago, BloodyEy3 said:

again: "Crowd controls are grouped into one of two categories depending on whether or not the effect removes total control of the player's character. Hard CC completely removes all control of a character, while soft CC only partially removes it."

rng makes it automatically partially !

Okay, but that is precisely what I am challenging, because for any given enemy, we either have a case of pseudo-Mind Control or no effect at all, and in neither case is the target's control removed so much as changed. Thus, the definition you are setting isn't really covering the current situation, particularly as you are talking about characters as a collective here when the definition is individual.

4 minutes ago, BloodyEy3 said:

do not missjudge hard cc for strong cc or soft cc for weak cc

Okay, so what then is the purpose of defining hard versus soft CC? Why not just talk about weak versus strong CC, which would be more pertinent to the subject of Chaos's effectiveness? As it stands, you and I both seem to agree that Chaos's crowd control is pretty strong as far as CC goes, which brings us back to the point this mini-debate stemmed from.

[TeaHawk]

Quote

With the nerfs coming out to armor scaling grineer will no longer be unkillable monsters at high levels and just be the slightly tankier faction

What the #*!% are you talkin about? Grineer is foremost the easiest faction to kill in this game. You put corrosive projection and a couple of mods  — and they're done.
On lvl 300 they are still patently harmeless except for bobmards. And what's the point staying on mission any longer anyways? UInless you're one of these no-lifers ready to spend 10 hours pressing the button? I don't #*!%ing see any.

If you want nerf S#&$ over, guess what?

What about stupid nullifiers spawning in #*!%ing hundreds on you and #*!%ing you over through the wall? What about Corpus and Orokin damage being so high you get #*!%ed on high levels earlier than you say "hello"? What about stupid insane Oxium Ospreay spawn-rate? What about some green moldy S#&$ on soil coming from high-level infested and almost killing you in one single tick ignoring the shield?

What about all that crazy S#&$? Let's forget it? Cuz some ultra-smart college guys still cannot figure out how to use corrosive projection and procs (and now fire dmg as well)? And complain about about balance, instead of focusing on how stupid they are? I'm so #*!%ing tired of seeing ignorant #*!%s come over and nerf S#&&#036 around; cuz they're ain't able to learn some basics.

I tell you what: Grineer armor scaling is the least #*!%ing problem in this game. Okay?

Unless you don't know how to play it, in which case you probably should not be writing you bullS#&&#036 here; and go learn some S#&$.

See you next time.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by TeaHawk

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

It isn't, though

You brought up paper dps. You also tried to bring this up to discredit my argument that the Lenz is beaten out by the Kuva Bramma. 

You shifted the argument as your narrative struggles and dies if proof of mastery rank and power progression exists to counter your narrative. 

So instead of conceding the point, like an honest person, you shift the goal posts after multiple videos, several different builds all independent to each other counter your narrative. 

Meanwhile you invent strawman arguments to pretend the two bow's function differently. You are literally only arguing pointless semantics for the sake of pretending to win. I have noticed that when I play Revenant, if I have mesmer skin up? As long as I don't point at the floor and fire? I have not killed myself yet with the thing, yet you pretend two explosive based bows, designed to deal damage in 6-7 meter radius play vastly differently then each other. 

No they don't. One has you roll before the explosion goes off, the other has you aim slightly ahead while cluster bombs go off around you. Oh, and one of those bows performs significantly better then the other, while having a higher mastery rank cap. 

Paper Dps, is a strawman argument on your part, same goes with your lousy argument that they play differently. You'd be more honest and respectable if you just admitted you were wrong, instead of digging another rabbit hole to shift the topic of the thread to. 

Bramma fires twice as fast, for more damage, is the superior weapon in every regard including status chance, and you can't face facts. What else is new?

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

I don't understand how you expect to get any different response by repeating yourself here.

projection again. Do I need to remind you who pretended Chaos was hard CC? Source Please for aforementioned lies. Still waiting for you to give me the other sources from earlier and you said Sure thing. 
 

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

if you take the Bramma into most of those same spaces, you're going to have a bad time. This is but one of the examples of how paper DPS is not a complete measurement of a weapon's power.

This is you projecting your own difficulties onto other people. I am in said tiny spaces, not having trouble. At all. With anything. I point, I fire. Then I go OOOOOH. AAHHHHH. As huge numbers flash across my screen to the sound of TENNO SCUUUUUUUUM!

Edited February 28, 2020 by (PS4)UltraKardas

[BloodyEy3]

vor einer Stunde schrieb Teridax68:

Okay, but that is precisely what I am challenging, because for any given enemy, we either have a case of pseudo-Mind Control or no effect at all, and in neither case is the target's control removed so much as changed. Thus, the definition you are setting isn't really covering the current situation, particularly as you are talking about characters as a collective here when the definition is individual.

i know you are trieng to do that. I just really dont see why. for 99x ways u look at cc and chaos ud reasonable come to the conclusion its soft cc (foes and allies are the same part).

that its based around "ai" coding just gives it a niche you are trieng to exploit so ur hard cc argument fits (which is hard to say sth preicsly about it as besides de no one actualy knows their behavior coding)

they are not forced to perform a single animation (this is for example the intial nyx chaos part --> thats why that is hard cc). their whole "mind"/ animation is not overwritten to perform 1 single task (mindcontrol, fear).

Spoiler

niche going against that logic: jammed weapons. mag3 augment or mesa 2 --> they are forced to unjam their weapons, (then the word stun is thrown around on the wiki page) --> that would make it hard cc --> if the enemy start useing their closecombat animation or melee once you are close to the enemies that are unjaming their weapon, or continue to use a terminal to initiate lockdown trigger alarm etc ---> would make it soft cc. (those "mind" referring abilites are more difficult to classify as you can see if sth is absolute or not)

the targets control is changed alot, he is attacking everyone (which depends on threat lvl (thats the normal enemy behavior), aswell as needing atleast 2 affected enemies semi close to each other to have an effect at all --> even more complicted). the requirement for chaos to be hard cc would be how far their behavior is changed

--> The invidual seems to still keep their own "preassinged behavior"  its just a one vs all situation (as he sees everyone as nyx)

--> now i dont know how this affects his ability to perform actions. does it stop enemies from performing lockdowns entirely ? does it stop them from recapturing interceptions points , trigger spy alarms ? or does it trigger lockdown more frequent as everyone thinks there is an enemy?

i think this all is kinda in cohension with an enemies Threat lvl and the prioity of each task (natural behavior) ive got no idea how the ai is coded. so its really really difficult to know how it is actually affected (ud probably only know from the code itself and then decide upon that). But the general state (attacks everyone depending on threat lvl --> threat lvl is natural behavior here and not a forced or absolute state) it is classified as soft cc.

example of mindcontrol to maybe make this point more clear: (the ability to act on its "own" is turned completly overturned, there is no margin in error)

Rarely, Mind Control will reverse an enemies ability to set off alarms, and if by a rare chance the enemy decides to "activate" already activated alarms, the enemy will actually turn them off (including lifting a complete lockdown into a system wide alert instead). (not sure if this happens anymore as it was already rare before)  (from warframe.wiki)

vor einer Stunde schrieb Teridax68:

Okay, so what then is the purpose of defining hard versus soft CC? Why not just talk about weak versus strong CC, which would be more pertinent to the subject of Chaos's effectiveness? As it stands, you and I both seem to agree that Chaos's crowd control is pretty strong as far as CC goes, which brings us back to the point this mini-debate stemmed from.

well its a missuse of definition. (which i found out is true for the other participant regarding this topic - cc aswell).

thats why both of you talk about different things. thats why neither could come to a common point. since ur common point of argumentation was based around value. Which cant be the common base for an argumentation. some people have some differntly values. and neither value is truely wrong or right ! thats a moment where u accept the other has a differnt value and move on.

 

Edited February 28, 2020 by BloodyEy3

[CopperBezel]

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Have you played the two weapons? 

Yes. As I said, I played my Ember with the Bramma in yesterday's sortie and replayed the third segment a few times with different builds for it. I just did today's with it now, which was only somewhat annoying vs. Lephantis. The Bramma isn't significantly harder to use than the Lenz. It requires care in positioning, and I'm still managing to down myself at least once per mission, but getting better at it. Much like the Lenz, I really only find myself suiciding with it when I do something stupid, for the same reasons as with the Lenz, which is to say, they're relatively slow, long-range launchers that actually lend themselves to keeping enemies at arm's length and shooting the floor. The Lenz was previously the only weapon in Warframe that had a self-damage mechanic that made sense to me, now there are two. The only difference with the Bramma is that the quicker draw time means that it's easier to actually place those shots, and of course, that there's actually a payoff. It also feels somewhat easier to place the explosion in a way that will kill the other guys and not me thanks to the death range for them being larger than the death range for me, since the cluster bomb part doesn't deal self-damage. 

Oh, I did notice that since there's some spread on the arrows and no real delay on the explosion, it's very difficult to land a headshot with and explodes on impact, which means you can't pull the trick of having the arrow kill a nearby enemy, carry the corpse to a wall, and explode there. That was always the most fun element of the Lenz to me, but the Bramma makes up for it in the relative lack of clunkiness elsewhere. With the Bramma, you shoot past that enemy and have the cluster bomb tag them from behind. Still satisfying.

2 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

Oh, and now that you've decided to reinsert yourself into this argument, how about this part of my last post that you decided not to answer:

[Snipped quote]

Seeing as you're apparently no longer done with me, this might be a good opportunity to get back on track into productive discussion.

After over three weeks of going around in circles, there's no sense in which that discussion turned out to be productive. I tried to explain a conflation you were making at the very center of the discussion, you "corrected" me by missing the point, and we're finished with that now. You already understand the areas in which I agree with you and the ones in which I think you're being unrealistic or making groundless assertions. As I've said, I think your whole idea of discussion is pure competition and I don't see any benefit for either of us.

[Teridax68]

On 2020-02-28 at 5:40 PM, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

You brought up paper dps. You also tried to bring this up to discredit my argument that the Lenz is beaten out by the Kuva Bramma.

No, you did. I merely questioned your repeated assertion that the Kuva Bramma is better than the Lenz, which is not answered by paper DPS alone despite your best attempts to reframe the discussion to your advantage. Once again, the dishonesty in your argumentation here is transparent, as is the degree of projection in your posts.

Quote

 You shifted the argument as your narrative struggles and dies if proof of mastery rank and power progression exists to counter your narrative. 

... how so? The existence of power progression is key to my "narrative", as my narrative would not exist if there were no vertical progression or power creep in Warframe. Once again, your attempts to misrepresent me make no sense.

On 2020-02-28 at 5:44 PM, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

projection again. Do I need to remind you who pretended Chaos was hard CC? Source Please for aforementioned lies. Still waiting for you to give me the other sources from earlier and you said Sure thing. 

Source for what exactly? It is you who have failed to list sources for any of your assertions, and your very accusation of projection is itself projection. You've become so consumed by hatred that your posts are turning completely unhinged once again. This is without even counting the rather visible trail of failures you've left in your wake, as you've gone on so many tangents as you abandoned the points you've lost that you've stooped to staging some kind of showdown on... where are we now, the Kuva Bramma vs. the Lenz? Tell me, how does that tie again into ability mods?

Quote

This is you projecting your own difficulties onto other people. I am in said tiny spaces, not having trouble. At all. With anything. I point, I fire. Then I go OOOOOH. AAHHHHH. As huge numbers flash across my screen to the sound of TENNO SCUUUUUUUUM!

Yes, clearly, which is why DE is removing self-damage entirely. Your timing could not be worse, to say nothing of how pathetic it is that you're still trying to brag in your blatantly false attempts to un-refute your point through anecdotal evidence.

On 2020-02-28 at 5:52 PM, BloodyEy3 said:

i know you are trieng to do that. I just really dont see why.

Because your definition is being applied inconsistently with respect to RNG-based crowd control, as pointed out already. Either the hard CC happens or it doesn't based on some degree of random chance, yet whether or not that qualifies as soft CC in its entirety is not covered by the definition you gave. Surely this must give you cause for concern as well, given how closely you've been wishing to follow the definition you've set to the letter.

Quote

well its a missuse of definition. (which i found out is true for the other participant regarding this topic - cc aswell).

thats why both of you talk about different things. thats why neither could come to a common point. since ur common point of argumentation was based around value. Which cant be the common base for an argumentation. some people have some differntly values. and neither value is truely wrong or right ! thats a moment where u accept the other has a differnt value and move on.

Okay, but again, what is the point of the definition? Of course one can have a discussion around value, because there are still points of comparison to be made: Mind Control is better than a stun, for example, because it not only stops the enemy from attacking, but makes them attack other enemies as well. Chaos itself has a notable effect when it makes an entire large room of enemies fight themselves. Debating which terms to call them according to some arbitrary definition with no in-game application is pointless, whereas claiming they do things they don't do (or don't do things that they do) is dishonest. In both cases, it's only on a medium disconnected from the game that either discussion can happen without immediately coming across as ridiculous.

On 2020-02-28 at 7:23 PM, CopperBezel said:

Yes. As I said, I played my Ember with the Bramma in yesterday's sortie and replayed the third segment a few times with different builds for it. I just did today's with it now, which was only somewhat annoying vs. Lephantis. The Bramma isn't significantly harder to use than the Lenz. It requires care in positioning, and I'm still managing to down myself at least once per mission, but getting better at it. Much like the Lenz, I really only find myself suiciding with it when I do something stupid, for the same reasons as with the Lenz, which is to say, they're relatively slow, long-range launchers that actually lend themselves to keeping enemies at arm's length and shooting the floor. The Lenz was previously the only weapon in Warframe that had a self-damage mechanic that made sense to me, now there are two. The only difference with the Bramma is that the quicker draw time means that it's easier to actually place those shots, and of course, that there's actually a payoff. It also feels somewhat easier to place the explosion in a way that will kill the other guys and not me thanks to the death range for them being larger than the death range for me, since the cluster bomb part doesn't deal self-damage. 

Oh, I did notice that since there's some spread on the arrows and no real delay on the explosion, it's very difficult to land a headshot with and explodes on impact, which means you can't pull the trick of having the arrow kill a nearby enemy, carry the corpse to a wall, and explode there. That was always the most fun element of the Lenz to me, but the Bramma makes up for it in the relative lack of clunkiness elsewhere. With the Bramma, you shoot past that enemy and have the cluster bomb tag them from behind. Still satisfying.

Okay, but notice how you're not even claiming the Bramma is better here, so much as saying it's not that bad compared to the Lenz. Moreover, you've also at least had the honesty to admit that you down yourself regularly with it, which further confirms my point. The Lenz is by no means the only explosive weapon out there, but is popular precisely because it's so generous with regards to its self-damage, soon to be self-stun. Thus, putting aside how neither it nor the Bramma are the best weapons out there, it stands to reason that paper DPS alone is not the only qualifier in this discussion, as even your argument testifies towards.

Quote

After over three weeks of going around in circles, there's no sense in which that discussion turned out to be productive. I tried to explain a conflation you were making at the very center of the discussion, you "corrected" me by missing the point, and we're finished with that now. You already understand the areas in which I agree with you and the ones in which I think you're being unrealistic or making groundless assertions. As I've said, I think your whole idea of discussion is pure competition and I don't see any benefit for either of us.

Then why are you still engaging in conversation? I am proposing you with an outlet to engage in discussion that is actually productive and salient to this topic, and yet you choose instead to argue off of a tangent of a tangent, all while getting on your high horse by claiming that your thirst for conflict and inability to actually listen to others was my fault. I did not miss the point last time, I answered you comprehensively, which made you look bad when you started getting confrontational, and is why you abandoned the mere pretense of answering productively and gave up the last time. What makes you think you'll do better on this occasion?

Edited March 2, 2020 by Teridax68

[CopperBezel]

I'm not going to address the personal junk. 

15 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Okay, but notice how you're not even claiming the Bramma is better here, so much as saying it's not that bad compared to the Lenz.

Let me be less ambiguous then - when I said that "there's actually a payoff", I was referring to its significantly higher damage. They are very similar to use, but the Bramma is less clunky and also kills things faster.

15 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Moreover, you've also at least had the honesty to admit that you down yourself regularly with it, which further confirms my point. The Lenz is by no means the only explosive weapon out there, but is popular precisely because it's so generous with regards to its self-damage, soon to be self-stun.

Do you see what you're doing here? The Bramma is getting the same change to self-stun. It doesn't make any sense to try to imply that you're counting that in one column but not the other. If anything, the way you're presenting it, the change would further favor the Bramma, because taking the Lenz to be more forgiving in applying a penalty means less if the penalty itself is reduced in value for both.

It seems to be an underappreciated quality of the Bramma that it's also very generous with its self-kill implementation, despite the raving mobs. There's an initial explosion and a spray of grenades, and the grenades do not damage the player. That means that the lethal range for enemies ends up being a big bigger than the lethal range for the user. You can also do things like shoot the ceiling and make bring the rain in a pinch.

18 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Thus, putting aside how neither it nor the Bramma are the best weapons out there, it stands to reason that paper DPS alone is not the only qualifier in this discussion, as even your argument testifies towards.

No, what you said was that the arguments presented for the Bramma's superiority were invalid because they were based on the Simulacrum. I gave you an answer that was not based on Simulacrum usage. As for whether they're mechanically similar enough for DPS to make the difference obvious, I don't care, precisely because I did explain in very careful detail the mechanical differences that do exist between them. I never said that a weapon was exclusively its DPS, and in fact said explicitly the opposite, but that these weapons are mechanically similar.

[Teridax68]

10 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:

I'm not going to address the personal junk. 

Let me be less ambiguous then - when I said that "there's actually a payoff", I was referring to its significantly higher damage. They are very similar to use, but the Bramma is less clunky and also kills things faster.

This is a rather subjective judgment, given that the Lenz's "clunkiness" is precisely what makes so many players pick it over other explosive weapons (or bows).

Quote

Do you see what you're doing here? The Bramma is getting the same change to self-stun. It doesn't make any sense to try to imply that you're counting that in one column but not the other. If anything, the way you're presenting it, the change would further favor the Bramma, because taking the Lenz to be more forgiving in applying a penalty means less if the penalty itself is reduced in value for both.

Do you see what you're doing here? I'm not counting the change to self-damage in one column and not the other; I am simply pointing out what we can see now, and when the change actually gets effected, we can see how that changes the Lenz vs. the Bramma. Meanwhile, it looks an awful lot like you're trying to dodge the point regarding the current state of the two weapons by arguing off of hypotheticals.

Quote

It seems to be an underappreciated quality of the Bramma that it's also very generous with its self-kill implementation, despite the raving mobs. There's an initial explosion and a spray of grenades, and the grenades do not damage the player. That means that the lethal range for enemies ends up being a big bigger than the lethal range for the user. You can also do things like shoot the ceiling and make bring the rain in a pinch.

That the grenades do not damage the player is irrelevant to the fact that it still has a main explosion that does. Unsubtly calling the rest of the players idiots for calling out a problem that is getting addressed as we speak helps neither your point nor your own credibility.

Quote

No, what you said was that the arguments presented for the Bramma's superiority were invalid because they were based on the Simulacrum. I gave you an answer that was not based on Simulacrum usage. As for whether they're mechanically similar enough for DPS to make the difference obvious, I don't care, precisely because I did explain in very careful detail the mechanical differences that do exist between them. I never said that a weapon was exclusively its DPS, and in fact said explicitly the opposite, but that these weapons are mechanically similar.

That's nice, except I'm not simply talking about your own argument, but UK's as well, which you piggybacked off of. As you can see, I am well acknowledging the fact that you are arguing from situations outside of the Simulacrum, even though your own argument itself needs to be taken with a grain of salt due to how it is almost entirely centered around your subjective (and, by your own implicit admission, minoritary) appreciation of the two weapons. Thus, I fail to see where the "no" here is coming from outside of some pointless desire to foist a contradiction upon a situation where none exists. 

Edited March 2, 2020 by Teridax68

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

 

On 2020-03-02 at 5:43 PM, Teridax68 said:

I'm not counting the change to self-damage in one column and not the other

Except that you are. The Lenz being more forgiving then the Bramma in terms of self damage was a rare distinction between the two in the case of two very similar weapons. Making the Bramma more forgiving makes these weapons function closer to each other. Something you can't admit, and something we won't fully see till we are hands on with the changes. But we have seen the DE livesteam. You are being dishonest by not acknowledging that the change brings the weapons closer together, instead of farther apart. If the Lenz was made to never do damage, and the Bramma was made to kill anyone if even a stray cluster bomb hits, this would be a distinction. But the Bramma is being purposely made safer. This is an attack on the Lenz, as Safer was one of the few areas is had on the Bramma.

So we are back to the familiar territory of somebody saying something accurate to you, and you are unable to come to terms with it. I imagine Copper was talking about the Clunkiness of the Lenz in terms of its rather slow charge rate, (among other issues.) or how it can take a moment for it to deal damage and out of the reasonable responses possible? Your response was off the mark, par for the course. People really aren't attracted to the flaws of a weapon. People don't go "Oh man, This weapon is so clunky and awful to use. I LOVE IT." 

"Safer" was one of the Lenz's selling points over the bramma. That point might be under contest right now. The largest difference now? Bramma charges faster, does more damage, and can be custom designed. Critical Bow vs Critical Bow. the differences between them are only in the specifics, while everything else is similar. 

So, among the common twists and turns of this thread. There are three currently repeating aspects of it. #1, The thread goes quiet, then you come back so you can try to prove yourself right. 

#2 your point is proven wrong, or purposely missing the point that somebody brings up, and to defend your argument, you continually shift the argument. 

#3 despite several aspects of contention in this thread being tied to opinion, You can't respect other people's opinion. 

Try to behave yourself this time.

[Teridax68]

 

13 hours ago, (PS4)UltraKardas said:

Na. That would be you dude. Seeing as you couldn't leave a dead horse lie.

Just had to come back to kick it again. It's dead horse prime at this point dude. Its half dead carcass is making Nidus jealous. 

... did you just admit to fuelling pointless drama? If there were a competition for scoring own goals, you'd be a world champion.

Quote

Except that you are. The Lenz being more forgiving then the Bramma in terms of self damage was a rare distinction between the two in the case of two very similar weapons. Making the Bramma more forgiving makes these weapons function closer to each other.

But we don't actually know if it'll make the Bramma more forgiving, is the point, because we haven't actually experienced the changes yet. It is both you and Bezel who are trying to have your cake and eat it too by discounting the current effects and banking on hypotheticals, which ultimately sinks your argument, as you are implicitly admitting that it is a point of distinction that discomfits your argument, yours especially given how you just tried to force the conversation around paper DPS alone.

Quote

So, among the common twists and turns of this thread. There are three currently repeating aspects of it. #1, The thread goes quiet, then you come back so you can try to prove yourself right. 

... when did the thread "go quiet"? You do realize some people do things on the weekend other than sit in front of their computers all day, waiting for their internet to respond, right?

Quote

#2 your point is proven wrong, or purposely missing the point that somebody brings up, and to defend your argument, you continually shift the argument. 

It only takes a couple of posts to see that this is a blatant lie, so why even bother? I literally quoted back to a part of the conversation that was actually salient to the thread to a person who outright refused to converse productively, while you've been the one flitting from tangent to tangent as your arguments by assertion have proven to fail.

Quote

#3 despite several aspects of contention in this thread being tied to opinion, You can't respect other people's opinion. 

... where did I not respect someone else's opinion?

Quote

Try to behave yourself this time.

You first. The problem with getting on a high horse is that it makes you rather easy to get knocked down, particularly as I'm also not the only one to call you out on your behavior either.

[(PSN)UltraKardas]

8 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

I'm sorry, weren't you done with this conversation?

Considering you were the first to stop posting, and the fact that you gave up trying to prove my arguments wrong as you fruitlessly argued with somebody else about Crowd Control? 

Pretty sure you were done with this conversation long ago. Not that you have added anything productive to this point in 3 weeks. 

8 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

You first. 

I really would have expected you to grow up already. Your responses are as stinging as a 11 year old repeating "No U". 

Like c'mon bro. If you are gonna try to insult me? At least make it a good come back. Copper just told you, your opinion is terrible, and you are gonna be this dishonest and this easy to disprove? You kicked the dead horse, I'm telling you, to drop it. You have already lost your argument, (As we saw when you tried to argue with somebody else who doesn't speak English as their first language. 

You also lost the argument as your notion for progress and power creep on this game requires you to defend every weapon that gets power crept in the game. Like, are you really going to pretend I didn't disprove your entire argument on nigh everything? Right Right. 

We will see if you have any self awareness, when you inevitably reply back to this post and try to insult me. (Except at this point, If I had adaption as a mod equipped it wouldn't even proc cause your insults are so lack luster they don't even damage. I'm more confused by how bad your insults are......)

Like, can you get a good argument, or a good insult? Either will do, but you need something that has a point man. 

[SilverBones]

I think this thread has run it's course.

Locking it up.