DO NOT remove self damage. It is a legitimate drawback and a niche some players welcome.

[(PSN)BlitzKeir]

This thread is filled with people pretending not to understand the intention of the language of the person they're responding to, so they can argue the merits of an opinion in a vacuum instead of deconstructing or improving on the ideas presented for the benefit of both parties.

But this is the internet, so I guess that's saying "this water is too wet". Everyone's a politician. This is why we can't have nice things.

[Cephalon_Baphoma]

18 minutes ago, (NSW)Kokojo said:

or... just remove self-damage

OR! We could keep self damage and rework it to be a actual risk reward system. It makes no sense for something that explodes to not hurt you in some way. I dont understand why people dont want challenge. The game already struggles with challenging the player, why babify it more? 

 

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 minutes ago, Vharu said:

For sake of credibility, you should probably use the weapon that this whole topic has centered around. Sure, it's not exclusive to the Bramma, but the Bramma is why everyone has been talking about self-damage of late, and why DE responded to it with the change. 

((+ more Bramma waffling throughout)

You're deluding yourself if you think the Bramma has made any significant difference in how people are talking about self-damage. It's just the same as it's always been. Hell, even when the Tonkor meta was in play, having the oppressive freebie didn't stop them complaining about the others.

Actually, if anything, when it comes to the Bramma in specific I've seen more complaints about the Bramma's effectiveness and presence than I have about its self-damage. So... More reason to keep self-damage, not remove it.

7 minutes ago, Vharu said:

Ok, but that's the past and not the case now... and im not sure where you pull these made up % numbers from, im sure 78% of them are fabricated. But hey, do you think 98% of weapons currently are unusable? I don't, because most people don't even have a Bramma - yourself included. 

Still using my Catchmoon, just had to throw a projectile speed mod on it, works the same. Lets be objective though, the variety is not lost... introducing a new weapon does not delete access to all other weapons. What you are actually saying but with a lot of spin added, is that players simply want to use what they feel is best. The majority flock to that weapon that is popular, and so the variety of use reduces only, but not the option to use the variety of weapons. 

So what does this say about it all? The majority will seek out what is best and use it, and they wont bother with anything that doesn't measure up. You can't sustain variety of use unless you make every weapon close to the same - which defeats the purpose of having a variety in the first place. The failed logic here is that creating more choices does not equate to all choices made, and adjusting any choice in the effort to make other choices more viable effective removes the choice in it. Thats applied logic.

Well, for the sake of illustration I pointed out that there's some ~92% of (primary plus secondary) weapons that don't exhibit self-damage. Take that and reduce the remainder down further to account for only Tonkor and Simulor(s) being the overbearing parties at the time, in spite of the fewer weapons that will have existed at the time, and yes, it's probably closer to 98% of the entire rest that were comparatively pointless.

It's not a question of wanting to use what you feel is best. It's that you had to do so, to be relevant. Just like bringing a Frost/Gara/Limbo to excavation missions. Even if you don't want to, you're probably going to do that because the drills get obliterated in the space of you sneezing if they're just left open.

Besides the fact this last paragraph of the quote is just a convoluted mess of apparent nonsense, it's funny that it starts out by saying it's bad to make weapons the same and yet you're advocating for the removal of one of the biggest mechanical differences that exists. Something is just self-contradictory in there.

3 minutes ago, Vharu said:

It's not hard to state what damage your a talking about either. 

You're talking about HP scaling with mods - has nothing to do with it, those are warframe mods, not weapon mods. It's simple, total weapon damage IPS + elemental = fixed number. Select a % of fixed number that isn't going to kill a warframe. Here ill do it for you since you'd rather verbally spar. 

Bramma = Approx 25,000 Damage
0.5% as Self-damage = 125 HP
1% as Self-damage = 250 HP
Applied as "True" damage

See how simple that is. 

Damage is the damage output of the weapon. It is how much BOOM comes out of the STICK, I'm sure you're being wilfully ignorant at this point.

How can you select a 'fixed value' of an arbitrary selection of mods? Of randomised Rivens? Are you suggesting to set a value that will make the absolute most thoughtlessly damage-packed build still not kill a warframe? Because that's defeating the point. Oh, and the old Tonkor dealt some 50 self-damage, to be accurate, but it's so statistically insignificant that we say it had none.

It might vary slightly in the newer releases, but taking the classic proportion, self-damage was roughly 30% of the weapon's damage output. So, you can see from that how effectively the formula scaled back the self-damage as weapon damage increases.

3 minutes ago, Vharu said:

If you think removing self-damage is a problem, wait till most own a bramma and then put yourself in DE's shoes... they fixed the problem before it grew into a bigger one, maybe give em a bit of credit... they are professionals after all, in a rather unique vantage point. 

DE also released the Tonkor. They've done plenty of other things that were completely foolish, sometimes only in hindsight, but sometimes even abundantly clear in advance from the external perspective. Nobody's too professional to make an ill-informed decision.

[BloodyEy3]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Vharu:

So is this your example of deconstructing or improving on the ideas presented? Well done, you just contributed whats known as a self-fulfilling prophecy. 

do you actually contribute in anyway to this thread ?

you have a quite strong personal opinion. (calling others chroma fanboy, does that make u bramma fanboy ?)

ur example to dissaprove of the OPs forumla was showing how #*!%ing redicoulus dmg bramma does (this is not just for bramma but for all "viable" aoe weapons).

its not even that they have a lot of dmg, they also have a lot of sc and crit chance. if u argue they got low magazine size and fireate as downside thats ....... ( you can imagine that part )

whoever thinks that the fall off and the stagger (which is probably less negative then the dmg fall off) can counter the dmg part of those weapons is ..... (read line above)

aoe weapons will always be more efficient and require less skill then their counterparts. Acar plasmor, corinth, ingis, ampres, fulmin --> their problem is they either lack cc or base dmg, so they tend to fall off after a certain point --> makes them still more usefull then probably 80% of all others weapons which is a reason why those are so popular

The launchers (atleast the good ones) dont lack that point --> which would make them a just a plain upgrade.

Now that you cant kill urself anymore why would anyone use those "weaker" versions ?

i am not fully against the self dmg removal -> it just needs an adequate downgrade to compensate for it (having fall off and stagger which u can nearly completly reduce) is not it i think.

if it were an adequate downgrade not a single person would be "ah this is a great change, no self dmg yes"

so besides needlesly buffing 1 whole weapon category it also takes away the one niche self dmg had and if they dont care about balance, they could just remove the buff on dmg and give it plain buff for midly reduced duration (on chroma). i see no point in not giving an adequate downside to 1 thing then completly forgetting to compensate sth else.

And before you call me also a chroma fanboy, i neither own chroma nor chroma prime and had no aswell as still have no intention of getting either one in the near future. I also dont use alot of explosive weapons (the only ones i use are sancti castanas and glaives)

and before you pick sth again, go back to my original comment and tell me how that would be bad. Whats ur argument against the idea i spoke out there ? besides falling back to :its already implemented accept it, de wont change anyhting before mainline hit, to few people care about it.

If thats ur opinion (i am even agreeing with you on that, that it will be most likely the case) there is no reason to keep commenting on this thread then. uve voiced ur opinion and have nothing more to add (which shows in ur comments after that statement). Just commenting to be the boo guy

[Lone_Dude]

1 hour ago, (PS4)BlitzKeir said:

This thread is filled with people pretending not to understand the intention of the language of the person they're responding to, so they can argue the merits of an opinion in a vacuum instead of deconstructing or improving on the ideas presented for the benefit of both parties.

But this is the internet, so I guess that's saying "this water is too wet". Everyone's a politician. This is why we can't have nice things.

"These peple here r stooped and dont hav proper dialoge but Im not wrong becus I dont take eithere side I want every1 to be happy and good.

Is useless to argue because is internet. Im not like everyone. Everyone bad and im not so im sad and yall shuld be ashamed" - sentence by sentence translation of what you actually said.

1 hour ago, Cephalon_Baphoma said:

OR! We could keep self damage and rework it to be a actual risk reward system.

Being displaced after a careless shot is a risk. Imagine getting thrown backwards right into the Nulli bubble, off the map or into a field of damage. You're still getting punished, you still have to position yourself properly before you fire, you still lose your DPS/KPS because you're basically out of combat for the duration of the recovery animation. It's just that now the punishment is not as dumb as an insta-kill.

1 hour ago, Cephalon_Baphoma said:

It makes no sense for something that explodes to not hurt you in some way.

It also makes no sense that many things in Warframe have an AoE nature but don't hurt you or your allies. I remember there was a "bug" where Ogris could harm a defense target. That was #*!%ing hilarious, people were mad and it was fixed quickly. Lets makes it so that all of our guns have friendly fire lmao. We should add #*!%ing fall damage while we're at it, I mean, if we get hurt by "impact" from punches, why don't we receive damage from slamming into the ground at extreme velocities? I mean, there is a heavy landing animation, that CAN kill you if you land between a bunch of enemies, but it's not good enough, amirite? We need NUMBERS.

1 hour ago, Cephalon_Baphoma said:

I dont understand why people dont want challenge.

People want challenge, its just that jumping up to the ceiling every time you fire or switching to another weapon is not the challenge we need lmao.

1 hour ago, Cephalon_Baphoma said:

The game already struggles with challenging the player, why babify it more?

Real challenge doesn't come from just getting one-shot by your own gun, even though it can't one-shot a level 60 unit. Good games challenge players with a smart AI, intricate map design and finely tuned player tools, while forcing the player to utilize their tactical thinking, knowledge of the game and physical abilities, such as hearing, sight and reaction time. Does Warframe have any of that?

• Come on now, how many times did you witness an enemy reload their gun right in front of you without even attempting to run away from you? How many times did you witness an enemy look into a corner instead of firing at you? I've been playing for 6 years and it has been the same braindead AI through all the updates.    
• The best enemy synergies we have are:
• • Ancient healers giving everyone damage resist
  • Nullies pulling enemies under their bubble
  • Arbi drones with their "NOPE-field"
  • Poor grineer shield dudes that sometimes get 1 or 2 grunts to hide behind them before getting kebabbed by a single shot from a gun with a punch through
• How many enemies per each faction have unique weakpoints that aren't located above their damn shoudlers?
• How many enemies are straight up immune to status and cc for some #*!%ing reason, rendering multiple playstyles unviable?
• Maps are not interactive and can be easily locked down and exploited as long as there are no nullies, as they can outright DELETE your setup, showing how lazy their design is. There is little to no map variation, really, if you've seen the map(tile) once, there is nothing for you to learn when you see it again. Even dynamically changing tiles are limited in that regard.
• Weapon and warframe balance is just crap. One of the best arguments against self-damage is that many dangerous weapons are outperformed by safe ones, if that wasn't the case more people would support self-damage. Same goes for frames - why bother with an easily countered, energy-hungry, squishy CC frame if you can literally delete everything off the map with 4 other frames? It basically boils down to personal preference alone and at that point no one is wrong or right, since we live in a nice society where I can't call someone a dumbass because I don't like their #*!%head opinion.
• What's the last time anyone on the dev team mentioned gunplay improvements? Why aren't there more guns with insane recoil as a trade off for insane damage they deal? Why didn't devs add a proper dynamic reticule allowing for better spread display? Why the #*!% do some guns go from 100 accuracy to 16 or 5 while others go down to 30 or 40? Why do weapons like Latron have long ass reload times? Why aren't there more gimmicky movement related weapon mechanics, such as some weapons having higher accuracy during slides or aimglides allowing for interesting setups with things like SMGs and shotguns?
• There are no advanced synergetic mechanics, such as status-combos or frame-combos(with Gauss being the only one SOMEWHAT capable of that). One fully geared player can take on pretty much anything without breaking a sweat.
• Even the health/energy "economy" is lacking, since players can easily sustain themselves without requiring supportive frames. Only Oberon with his insta-revive is SOMEWHAT useful, IF you manage to #*!%ing die like a scrub in the first place(which is extremely difficult unless you use #*!%ing Ogris and dont jump before you shoot lmao).
• Mission objectives are static and exploitable and multiple frames and playstyles were nerfed because of that instead of fixing the root cause.

What I'm saying is, Warframe is not deep or difficult enough for anyone to claim that they're some kind of pro. Even the "eleete" endurance runners usually just sit in some locked down deadspot of a safe tile and spam GUN while bullet jumping to decrease enemy accuracy. Ain't rocket science - they're simply avoiding enemy oneshots constantly while CCing the map. The game is easy and simple by design - its a power fantasy. Thats why the player retention is so bad. You can only obliterate so many braindead goons before you realize that flashy pew-pews don't get your pp hard no more. Having a collection of guns that kills YOU won't help the situation and it certainly won't make those who use such guns look any cooler or tougher lol.

Edited March 2, 2020 by Lone_Dude

[BloodyEy3]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb Vharu:

Just copy and paste it... 5 pages of comment mate.

takes about a minute at most to find that

Edited March 2, 2020 by BloodyEy3

[MJ12]

1 hour ago, Cephalon_Baphoma said:

OR! We could keep self damage and rework it to be a actual risk reward system. It makes no sense for something that explodes to not hurt you in some way. I dont understand why people dont want challenge. The game already struggles with challenging the player, why babify it more? 

 

"risk reward systems" exist to soft-discourage certain playstyles which are not fun for players because they are simultaneously 'safe' but also slow down the game, make encounters grind on, lead players to end up in a specific rut and therefore avoid experiencing more of the game's complexities, or otherwise lead to undesirable outcomes for the player themselves.

As an example, flanking shots and Meld in XCOM are 'risk-reward' which encourage players to move aggressively rather than to engage in the otherwise-optimal strategy of slowly creeping forward one square at a time and going into overwatch, making missions take several boring hours. Character action games like Devil May Cry, Bayonetta, and Metal Gear Rising almost always have very high damage parry/counter moves, which encourage players to expose themselves to attacks, and they generally have a scoring system that takes time into account so you're more likely to get into range of enemy attacks rather than stay as far away as possible and poke at enemies endlessly with 'safe' low-damage attacks. Roguelikes/roguelites often have challenge runs that add extra conditions to your run for additional meta-progression rewards to incentivize players to take advantage of the variety that their randomization system provides rather than stick with one character, one build, and one setup all the time. Games like Borderlands 3 have difficulty modes which increase the quality and quantity of loot and XP you get for completing the game on an increased difficulty, to incentivize players to play at the most challenging difficulty level they can reliably beat rather than sticking to the easiest possible way to farm content-and Borderlands 3, in particular, often gives you weird positive and negative modifiers for specific elements and weapons so you might try out different builds and weapons rather than sticking to one favorite gun.

But the core component shared out of all these actually useful implementations of risk-reward is that they exist to stop players from optimizing the fun out of the game by incentivizing actions which would otherwise be considered mistakes if you wanted to progress through the game efficiently. Difficulty mutators that increase your rewards gained keep players from getting bored grinding their way through meta-progression. Borderlands 3-style mutator difficulty makes players change up their builds and favored weapons to try out more and more of what the game provides them. Character action games reward you throwing yourself into the middle of enemies so you don't get bored chipping away at enemies with weak projectile attacks from across the arena. XCOM rewards you with crits and Meld for moving fast and aggressively so you don't end up spending 3 hours every mission creeping one square at a time forward with 4 people on overwatch. 

Or to put it another way-they exist to make otherwise objectively suboptimal but fun gameplay decisions not suboptimal, so when you get hit, or end up dying because you're using weapons/builds you aren't familiar with, or when you reveal an extra pod of alien reinforcements because you got aggressive, you don't get mad at yourself for playing the game in the 'expected,' fun way instead of playing it in a 'cheesy' and unfun fashion.

So here's the question: Why exactly is the 'risk' that launchers provide such a core component of Warframe's gameplay experience that justifies rewarding players disproportionately for embracing that risk, and why should the game discourage players from attempting to avoid that risk? How is playing Warframe without the use of self-damaging weapons somehow less fun and less desirable for players? Because that's what "keep self-damage but buff launchers" actually means-it means that you're making launchers more powerful than other weapons to "compensate" for self-damage, which means that you're encouraging players to take up self-damaging weapons even when they normally might not be interested in such a thing.

[BlindStalker]

For OP, I would be in favour of seeing DE review and using your formula, there's some actual thought put into the algorithm and I feel it would be worth DE's time to look it over and try implementing with it.

Edited March 3, 2020 by BlindStalker

[BloodyEy3]

vor 25 Minuten schrieb Vharu:

yeh so.... go fetch it for me.

What great honor to have you reply to a "dogs" comment. I can only thank god (or you as its close to the former) for that. Am i allowed to continoue human language or should i start barking?

Srsly who the #*!% you think you are ?

you go to a post which in the headline of the thread already says sth which you have a comeplete disagreement with. after answering once which was  -->

vor 7 Stunden schrieb Vharu:

I mean lets be real, that is the elephant in the room you tactfully left out of your thread, and the only reason anyone is opposed to removing self-damage - Chroma. As if a whole community of all other Warframes should bend to the whim of Chroma and his self-buffing...

Thats what this is really about, the removal of Chroma self-buffing, and the sales pitch here is an attempt to make a case for self-damage.  

you only keep replying to other people to be a $&*^

why do u even keep replyin aftewards. You said it has no meaning to do so. so you are just replying for the sake of being con. No value whatsoever !!! And then you even put urself above of me.

Edited March 2, 2020 by BloodyEy3

[(XBOX)Red Dough Boy]

The only self damage left is people being sad that self damage is being removed. 

 

Again, self damage on explosive weapons has a place in a cover shooter style game where engagements will last for quite some time of firing back and forth until you deploy explosives to destroy or dislodge enemies from cover so you can take them down with other means. The typical use of explosive weapons is to throw a frag or fire an explosive at range so you don't blow yourself up in the process. In that sense you need self damage so a player doesn't waltz through every situation throwing grenades or firing rockets at anything that breathes. Warframe doesn't have those kinds of engagements, you can fly through the air and completely ignore entrenched enemies cover to kill them at close range. Explosive weapons have no place in this kind of combat, and using them is more often than not a death sentence for yourself as much as it is for the enemy. Self damage being replaced by knockdown is a perfectly acceptable middle ground, the stalwart defenders of self damage just want an easy way to pad certain powers like what Harrow and Chroma have, or think the game is too easy so the only challenge left is in using weapons where it's a 50/50 chance you'll end up killing yourself more than the enemy kills you. 

[(XBOX)WolfKingLeo]

the fact that people wanted self damage to get removed and when it does they're like "no no keep self damage". 

PICK ONE

[BloodyEy3]

vor 2 Minuten schrieb (XB1)WolfKingLeo:

the fact that people wanted self damage to get removed and when it does they're like "no no keep self damage". 

PICK ONE

well its more the different groups. why would the people that like self dmg voice their opinion when its in the game ? its obvious always to opposite that will be the vocal ones

[(XBOX)Red Dough Boy]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)WolfKingLeo said:

the fact that people wanted self damage to get removed and when it does they're like "no no keep self damage". 

PICK ONE

"I want self damage but I also don't want self damage." 

I'm sure they'd still complain if self damage was cut to 10% of health instead of being insta kill most of the time. 

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 hours ago, Vharu said:

Im deluding myself?

YOU DONT EVEN OWN A BRAMMA! - yet here you are talking about Self-damage, and openly stating how much you have complained about the bramma's  effectiveness and presence aswel. 

Honestly, how can you even start to approach a topic like this when you have no experience at all with the Bramma. It's like hey, I might aswel start telling people how to build rockets... because I have no experience in that, and just wanna feel like I have something valuable to contribute. 

I asked you what was the single most significant reason you have for keeping self-damage. You had nothing at all, and this is your thread... You said "I just dont want things to be like the tonker"... Jesus man, I don't know what else to say except that you're just blowing hot air. 

-No reasoning
-No experience w/Bramma

and you thought it was a good idea for you to make this thread. Do you know the difference between reasoning and preference? How about reasoning and opinion? All you have presented is personal preference and opinion, nothing more. 

It's pretty simple, what reasons are their to keep the self-damage or implement your alternative system? Technically you can say that one reason is that there is alot of demand for it - that is a reason, a reason where there is mass preference, but you have to prove thats the case. 

Ya got to own ya sh!t properly, there is a big difference is saying "I want this change" and "This needs to change" - If you are going to call it out as something that is a need, well provide the reasons for that, otherwise just own it as your personal preference that is absent of any legitimate reasoning to calling it a need to change. 

So I haven't gotten around to picking up the latest self-damage weapon which takes a several-hour grind just to be at the most entry of levels because it comes from a Lich, and somehow that makes me unable to comment on something I've used in every other circumstance, and have on-the-ground experience with both using myself, and seeing its absence abused by others?

That's the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy. Failure.

Wanting the game to not capsize in repeating a past mistake is not hot air or personal preference. The fact that it constitutes a negligible portion of the options available to players and nothing forces its usage upon people who do not enjoy it, is not personal preference, it is objective.

And no, I'm not going to 'reason' for mass preference - bandwagon fallacy is one of the holes in your own lot's swiss-cheese argument.

3 hours ago, Vharu said:

probably? - in other words you dont know for sure, yet you want to come across that you have things measured down to a fine point. Give it a break ok, and stop using fabricated % values to try and make your opinions look factual. 

It's probably because there's no productive use of my time in going back through all the patch notes and siphoning off all the weapon releases since Tonkor meta just to find the exact percentage (given that we're talking about 3 weapons, this would mean 150 primaries and secondaries to select from to reach 98%).

It's an estimation, and since we know that 20 guns accounts for just over 8% of options now, 3 is going to be a much more slim portion even though there weren't all of the 242 we currently have. Unless you think there were only 30 total weapons at the time, the point stands - far, far too few viable choices.

3 hours ago, Vharu said:

You wanna read that back to yourself one more time?

So what you are saying, is that players are being forced to use what they feel is best? omg what a crises. Also BS, you don't have to use any of the self-damaging weapons to "be relevant". But I'll say it once more, you probably should use the Bramma so that your opinion on this topic is relevant. 

Honestly, you are scrapping the bottle of the barrel just to desperately make a point. 

You do realize there is a thread with someone wanting to nerf the bramma now that self-damage is getting removed... so I guess removing self-damage doesn't exactly "make it the same as all other weapons" does it?

Of course. Would you be happy if you had to use self-damaging weapons because they did 400 times as much damage as their nearest risk-free neighbour? Clearly not. Having only an illusion of choice is as good as having no choice at all.

So you're agreeing now that removing self-damage is going to unbalance the game (courtesy at least the Bramma), then? Which means, quod erat demonstrandum, it's a mistake and should be cancelled.
I was just pointing out the hypocrisy of your own argument considering that self-damage removal is a giant leap of homogenisation for a category of weapons that most heavily encourages the player to shake up their approach to the game.

3 hours ago, Vharu said:

So the damage value, take a small % value - either 1.5% 1% or 0.5% - and that will reduce the self-damage so it doesn't result in self-death. You would have it as a specific % value for that weapon. But hey, doesn't matter because my simpler idea and your unnecessarily complicated idea ain't gonna happen. 

Self-damage is going, and once it's gone it ain't coming back. At what point are you going to realize this?

Putting aside the fact that what you're suggesting just doesn't change anything because you're describing Cautious Shot which already exists, you're saying that:

> Decide how much damage players should output before risks start scaling to fatal levels

> Apply relevant numbers to a formula attached to self-damage events

> (Optional) Easily review and alter formula variables at a later date as the game evolves.

is more complicated than

> Go to every weapon individually

> Arbitrarily decide on what its output is with a certain mod loadout that cannot possibly account for the variety between players

> Figure out what percentage of that is 'good' (also a fool's errand)

> Set self damage to this percentage

> Repeat every time a new risk-weapon is released

> Repeat for every weapon whenever modding changes 

Nope, looks like your swiss-cheese argument just sprouted a new hole.

 

Self-damage isn't gone yet, and even if this ill-conceived idea does make it through, it can be reverted later when DE sees sense. Sorry, mate. I think you failed your Intimidate check.

[Phernok]

I don't understand why there is so much hatred of some people for having self-inflicted damage.

(When I use the ogris kuva or the penta with a cautious shot at the maximum level of the mod I find it good, since these weapons do not do almost self-inflicted damage, sometimes it only removes the shield, its Status Effect is more annoying.)

As I mentioned earlier the current self-inflicted damage I don't like, but because it is not balanced. The best solution to an error is not to eliminate a mechanic because it has an error, but to try to fix its error. His mistake is that the self-inflicted damage is too high in that we agree as much as he likes the self-inflicted damage as he does not.

The new mechanics of making an animation that avoids the explosion (shaky effect) does not seem bad to me either. It seems very good to me and that they could also leave it either with a mod, or that by pressing the fire key with an explosive weapon while pressing to avoid doing this animation, it would give us an extra way to avoid explosive damage and more playability. (But this mechanic should not be a penalty if not an advantage for us as players to avoid that self-inflicted damage.) I hate the staggering of Quick Thinking, I hope that with this new system it also works for that.

Edited March 3, 2020 by Phernok

[TheLexiConArtist]

2 hours ago, Vharu said:

So you don't have the Bramma...

but here you say that you have used it in every other circumstance... ¹

It's simple, the Bramma is why self-damage got removed, and it's why self-damage was requested to be removed. You haven't got one, you haven't used one - and you think just because you used a tonker or lenz that you opinion on this matter is going to be relevant to everyone using a bramma.

You couldn't even provide accurate examples in your formulas because didn't even know how much damage it did. Just stay in your lane ok, stop trying to revert a change that didn't effect you in the first place. Literally no one gives two sh!ts about self-damage being implemented if you take the Bramma out of the equation. ²

Oh hear you go again with your list of terms and fallacies. Well guess what, Mass preference determines everything - your elections, what business thrive and what dies, everything from who rules what and what gets done. Herd mentality, capitalism, free markets, democracy, consumer culture - all of it governed by mass preference. 

Call it what you want, but the reality is mass preference is a reason. Especially in the context of a game that depends on it's players to fund it's survival. The only fallacy here is your backwater thinking that would have changes that only appeal to your person preference while ignoring the wider player base. If you ran DE it would go bankrupt in one financial year - because "listening to the majority is a fallacy" - yeh good job mate.³

Honestly, your accuracy is worse than the Bramma.... here you try come off as specific....

but here you make some absurd exaggeration of '400x' - are you actually nuts? ⁴

Well done, you have progressed from fabricating % values to fabricating multiplication values... you're not an armchair mathematician, you're a street gutter mathematician. Here, ill follow your example ey...

Roughly 74% wanted self-damage removed, comprised of roughly 200,000 participants and 48% owning a Bramma, the other 26% wanted it to stay. OMG thats a 3:1 ratio in favor of removing self-damage.... << is this the kind of BS you want to encourage by making up values? 

99% of people use percent values incorrectly - it is a quantifiable expression, you don't use that sh!t on your feelings ok... I hope that makes you feel 62% happy.  

Don't put words in my mouth, especially not smug crap like 'quod erat demonstrandum' - bruh... again with the Latin... what is with you and these Latin terms. You're one of those guys that would ask someone to pass you the Sodium Chloride. 

Why are you trying to impress me? I'll tell you what would impress me... if you actually had a point of reasoning among the sea of your opinions. 

Your suggestion describes the use of 'Cautious Shot', which already exists and does not change anything. << Honestly, focus on structuring English better instead of dropping in Latin terms and Fallacy labels. ⁵

Does Cautious Shot work on the Bramma? - No. 
Did my suggestion actually describe Cautious Shot? - No⁶

Just give up mate. You never had anything more than an opinion and preference for something that has already been decided on. Then you resort to fabricating bias groups, minority/majority attribution to such groups, inaccurate percent values, exaggerated damage multiplications - when does it stop? You are literally at the point of speaking Latin because you have failed to present any reasoning in plain English. ⁷

....and just to top it off, when asked what your most significant reason is for implementing self-damage, you reply with something that amounts to no more than 'because i want it'. ⁸ Well here is a gross contradiction. You want self-damage to remain, but out of the same mouth you also diminish the value of mass-preference? So if your desire here to keep self-damage was accepted by the majority - well I guess that would make you apart of the 'bandwagon fallacy', as you put it. Fortunately your sentiment and wishful thinking is among the minority choice - evident by the changes that will take place very soon. ⁹

It's no longer worth the effort in splitting up the quote so I'll just insert footnote numbers to make life mildly simpler while I deal with the simple minded.

1) Every other incarnation of self-damage I have used. Your own wilful misinterpretation does not change what I'm stating. If it's not wilful misinterpretation then your reading comprehension needs some serious work. The only way you would see an immediate contradiction in that statement is if you were looking to force one, any sane mind would simply realise that is vanishingly unlikely to be what I meant.

2) Again you're failing to grasp a simple concept. The formula works dynamically for all values of D. The weapon's damage is the input. Self-damage is the output. D is not a control variable in the formula. Also, it's only your own completely fabricated opinion that nobody cares about self-damage in relation to any of the other ~19 items that exhibit it.

3) You're projecting the 'fallacy fallacy' onto me here. I never said that the majority can't be right in any case. Bandwagon fallacy simply states that popular opinion alone does not make an argument objectively the most correct one. You want to cite politics? Sure, then you can abandon your argument considering the myriad instances in history where the masses made a choice they came to regret.

4) Since I know you love me calling out your fallacies, I'll spare you this one. Anyone who was making sensible argument (which you are clearly not even attempting) could see that the specific value there is irrelevant. The point is "much bigger impact = more pressure to use it = overrides personal preference". In that hypothetical world where a self-damage weapon was just given ludicrous damage outright while self-damage was always fatal, you would feel obliged to use it. Which isn't what either of us want.

5) Clearly I can use better English than that of which you are capable. But I'm not using that to obscure an argument, since I try to find a different way of explaining any point that fails to come across. The latin there, incidentally, is just what's usually abbreviated as QED and means 'that which was to be demonstrated'. You proved my point and defeated your argument by acknowledging the Bramma (at least) would be broken without self-damage.

6) Yes. Current self-damage is a percentage. Cautious Shot reduces that percentage to a 1/100 factor of itself. Therefore, asking for self-damage to be a (very small) percentage of the weapon's damage output is equivalent to using Cautious Shot currently.

7) Just because you remain wilfully ignorant of my reasoning does not mean that it has not been presented. 

8) Not accurate. Strawman. Misrepresenting my argument to make it possible for you to attack it.

9) You can't bully my argument away with presuming the outcome. It's not impossible that DE will see sense before the mainline ships, nor is it impossible for the mistake to be rectified afterwards. Sorry, we're going to keep pointing out the problem whether it suits you or not.

[Teridax68]

Let's perhaps see what the changes to explosives have to offer before posting a knee-jerk thread, given that DE specifically tried to maintain a skill-based component and even a degree of punishment. As it stands, I say good riddance, as the writing's been on the wall for quite some time, and all but a tiny, hyper-vocal minority agreed for a long while that self-damage doesn't work in a game like Warframe.

[CopperBezel]

5 hours ago, Vharu said:

It's simple, the Bramma is why self-damage got removed, and it's why self-damage was requested to be removed. You haven't got one, you haven't used one - and you think just because you used a tonker or lenz that you opinion on this matter is going to be relevant to everyone using a bramma.

I genuinely don't understand this argument. The Bramma has more in common with the Lenz than it does with the Tonkor (at least the non-Kuva variant) or Ogris. It got very popular very fast among people who weren't already using self-kill weapons, and as a result, the community as a whole remembered that self-kill was a thing and that it sucked. The Bramma isn't a stand-out dangerous weapon to use. Like the Lenz, it's designed around careful placement and positioning. It's an instant kill for jobber enemies and devastating for heavies, justifying the fact that it can kill the player too, and has a kill radius bigger than its self-kill radius. The arrows have some spread, but there's very little randomness to it in practice.

[Klaleara]

Self damage is lame in a game where you move at the speed of lightning as far as I'm concerned.  Especially when a weapons damage FAR out ranks your health in almost every case.

And to keep self damage for literally 1 Warframe (And a couple in the future I'm sure) is not a great way to basically nullify an entire genre of weapons for the majority of the playerbase.  This thread alone is pretty evident that most people want/are okay with self damage being gone.

I personally look forward to playing with a lot of the weapons in my Arsenal that have been in cryo for literally years, cause they end up killing me far more than the enemy ever does.

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 hours ago, Klaleara said:

Self damage is lame in a game where you move at the speed of lightning as far as I'm concerned.  Especially when a weapons damage FAR out ranks your health in almost every case.

And to keep self damage for literally 1 Warframe (And a couple in the future I'm sure) is not a great way to basically nullify an entire genre of weapons for the majority of the playerbase.  This thread alone is pretty evident that most people want/are okay with self damage being gone.

I personally look forward to playing with a lot of the weapons in my Arsenal that have been in cryo for literally years, cause they end up killing me far more than the enemy ever does.

"As far as you are concerned". Ignoring those who like it to suit your own opinion. Also, conveniently ignoring that I've suggested a way to address the health/damage scaling mismatch.

The warframe interaction is the least relevant line of reasoning, although Chroma wasn't the first or only instance (Trinity Link reflection and to an extent Nyx Absorb powering). Not everyone has to like every thing. Bows in general are probably comparable with self-damaging weapons, but because there's not a scapegoat for you to point at for them, it's quietly ignored.

"A lot" of the weapons in your arsenal? When dumbfired explosives account for <4% of options and all self-damage <10% (neither percentage including the entire melee suite on top of that)? Just because you don't like the risk of self-damage, doesn't mean nobody does. Just because you don't find it engaging to master not killing yourself with them (at least not any more so than enemies do) does not mean it's impossible to do so.

Should we next take all beam weapons out and make them all direct-damage hitscan rifles because an arbitrary subsection of the playerbase happens to not like the hard range limitations or held over-time trigger style? Or do we just accept that not everyone will use every item in the game on a regular basis?

[Klaleara]

31 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

"As far as you are concerned". Ignoring those who like it to suit your own opinion. Also, conveniently ignoring that I've suggested a way to address the health/damage scaling mismatch.

The warframe interaction is the least relevant line of reasoning, although Chroma wasn't the first or only instance (Trinity Link reflection and to an extent Nyx Absorb powering). Not everyone has to like every thing. Bows in general are probably comparable with self-damaging weapons, but because there's not a scapegoat for you to point at for them, it's quietly ignored.

"A lot" of the weapons in your arsenal? When dumbfired explosives account for <4% of options and all self-damage <10% (neither percentage including the entire melee suite on top of that)? Just because you don't like the risk of self-damage, doesn't mean nobody does. Just because you don't find it engaging to master not killing yourself with them (at least not any more so than enemies do) does not mean it's impossible to do so.

Should we next take all beam weapons out and make them all direct-damage hitscan rifles because an arbitrary subsection of the playerbase happens to not like the hard range limitations or held over-time trigger style? Or do we just accept that not everyone will use every item in the game on a regular basis?

I mean, just because you like it, doesn't mean the majority would prefer it without self-damage (Which as far as this thread has shown, is majority dislikes self damage).

[SpringRocker]

10 hours ago, Vharu said:

and this is what i think about your effort 🙂

Well... For what it's worth... You did start your own thread because you didn't like what they had to say...

 

 

13 hours ago, Vharu said:

You couldn't even provide accurate examples in your formulas because didn't even know how much damage it did. Just stay in your lane ok, stop trying to revert a change that didn't effect you in the first place. Literally no one gives two sh!ts about self-damage being implemented if you take the Bramma out of the equation.

 On 2020-03-02 at 5:32 AM, Vharu said:

And this is incorrect - it's single damage is less than the catchmoon, the AoE damage is where the majority of its damage is - and its the AoE damage that is getting a radial gradient power nerf.

 

23 hours ago, Vharu said:

Yeah, go look at the IPS+elemental of the catchmoon, and compare it to the Bramma.

 

On 2020-03-02 at 5:35 AM, Vharu said:

My melee does a better job, a Redeemer does a better job, hell... an opticor vandal does a better job on single targets.

 

Apparently even owning a Bramma, you still think that a Catchmoon and Opticor Vandal does more damage than a Bramma.

If you can't even read a few numbers...

[(XBOX)WolfKingLeo]

[MysticDragonMage]

On 2020-02-28 at 5:37 PM, (PS4)Hikuro-93 said:

Changes happen, the game presses forward. Can't please everyone at every turn.

i think most of everyone needs to realize this by now.

literally everything is subject to change.

[(NSW)StoneGhost]

On 2020-03-02 at 9:59 AM, Vharu said:

Ofcourse we expect to see every Chroma Eidolon fanboy to come out of the wood works against this change, and putting every thorough effort into it as if their Arcane platnum farm is on the line. 

How about we please both worlds of the Bramma bros and the Chroma Trido-hards. Give a 0.001% self-damage, or simply allow the chroma buffs to proc on stuns. Personally though, I would love to see the Eidolon Meta shaken up completely - those who farm it have a dam cult-like mentality that treats any player not using harrow, trin, chrom, volt as some unwanted smell in the room. 

I mean lets be real, that is the elephant in the room you tactfully left out of your thread, and the only reason anyone is opposed to removing self-damage - Chroma. As if a whole community of all other Warframes should bend to the whim of Chroma and his self-buffing...

Thats what this is really about, the removal of Chroma self-buffing, and the sales pitch here is an attempt to make a case for self-damage.  

False. I enjoy the challenge. 

Let's be honest - you're condescending and pretentious. That's really what this is about. But it's okay, so is everyone else who keeps telling us why we actually oppose getting rid of self-damage.