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

[kapn655321]

Could make the self damage a mod with some tasty trade offs.

[TheLexiConArtist]

16 hours ago, Klaleara said:

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).

That's debatable. Also you have to consider the people who have no opinion either way, they don't dislike self-damage but they're not motivated to post about keeping it.

Maybe the minority who hate self-damage enough to strike it from the record is larger than the minority who actively want it to remain for one reason or another, but that doesn't make them an overall majority. Even some of the passing comments of positive responses are likely from people who didn't feel like it was a necessary change despite their own dislike, it's just, "Oh, neat, guess I'll try using those couple weapons again after all".

But as we've shown, that's at cost of a playstyle and to gain sub-10% of weapons. Plus balance concerns.

4 hours ago, Lone_Dude said:

 If our mobility options were limited, verticality-wise, THEN there would be a true challenge in positioning yourself properly. If maybe more maps had lower ceilings and were tighter, like Kuva stronghold, then it would be actually difficult to use self-damage weapons, since their area of use would be limited not by me choosing not to press "Ctrl+Space", but by actual design. Basically, I don't find it challenging or complex, I just find it annoying.

See, you say that, but according to many people who are so adamantly against self-damage existing, every tile in the game is a claustrophobic corridor where any explosive you shoot is going to be a risky one. Even if you find it annoying more than engaging yourself, at least you can take a step back and acknowledge that it's totally possible to use them safely.

Then again, pushing that boundary of safety is half the fun. It's just a matter of whether you can accept the result when you push too far and die by your own mistake.

 _{You should probably chill a bit on that personal argument though, s'gonna get modded.}

 

[Lone_Dude]

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

See, you say that, but according to many people who are so adamantly against self-damage existing, every tile in the game is a claustrophobic corridor where any explosive you shoot is going to be a risky one. Even if you find it annoying more than engaging yourself, at least you can take a step back and acknowledge that it's totally possible to use them safely.

I don't mind saying that I'm a minority in that regard. And it probably has something to do with the way I play the game. You see, I'm usually playing alone - no stupid ass teammate to jump in front of me, no min-maxers to sweep the map, forcing me to pick up the pace, none of that S#&$, I'm constantly in my comfort zone, everything goes as planned, since I'm the only one doing the planning and execution. I play the game the way I want to, to have fun and if something goes ass-backwards - the fault is mine.

That being said, I have my share of experiences in Public matches, where I suffered from self-damage because some moron, having a strong case of herd instinct just HAS to follow me, run in front of me and do all kinds of S#&$ disruptive to my gameplay, leading to my death. I swear to God, some people don't even consider that S#&$ - they're the kind of people that will stand in the middle of a road chatting with their friend, obstructing the path of everybody else.

Basically, what I'm saying is, people who complain about it, are not complaining for nothing - I can use it safely, so can you, but the game is not made for us alone lmao. Looking at how positive the response to that change is, it is obvious that many people welcome it, meaning they most likely encountered the problems I've just described. There are of course, "special" individuals who will blame the game for "killing them" because they can't put 2 and 2 together while wielding a god damn rocket launcher, but I suppose you and I understand each other on that topic, so I digress.

Oh yeah, last thing - I don't mind dying in that game, as in, I don't see it as a problem - I have 6 revives on me at all times and lose pretty much nothing on death since all of my resources that I build up during my "life" can be gained in a second by spamming consumables. So I guess it also adds up to my positive bias towards self-damage.

1 hour ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Then again, pushing that boundary of safety is half the fun. It's just a matter of whether you can accept the result when you push too far and die by your own mistake.

What makes me upset is that its exactly HALF the fun. The removal of self-damage could be avoided if developers adressed some of the issues people bring up constantly. Even in this post you propose that ally collision should be removed - but it never happened, for some #*!%ing reason. I've also seen many people say that they would mind the self-damage, even in its insta-kill state IF our weapons were strong enough to warrant it. But someone at DE really doesn't like that idea so here's that. Self-damage is another victim of a lacking effort in manually balancing CATEGORIES of weapons. I hate it when such systems, are half-assed, for me its all or nothing - do it good, or don't do it at all. And it seems DE finally realized that they just can't do the "good" with self-damage in place.

Shield-gating probably plays a big part in the removal of self-damage too. I'm pretty sure that complaints about self-damage would die down with that system in place because I noticed that a lot of enemy encounters while I'm using an AoE weapon end in 1 strike - my strike lmao. I get the jump on the enemies, fire a rocket, they don't even get to hit me because I'm also in the air and enemies get the accuracy debuff(which will also get an effectiveness increase in a following update). Meaning, that I have invuln frames at the ready to defend me from either my own exposives or enemy fire in majority of cases.

_{And when it comes to personal arguments, I expect mods to stay objective and to either nuke us both or do nothing about that because both me and that guy are not just arguing, but we also discuss the subject of that thread. Also, I'm super nice so I hid it in a spoiler lmao.}

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by Lone_Dude

[TheLexiConArtist]

3 hours ago, Lone_Dude said:

What makes me upset is that its exactly HALF the fun. The removal of self-damage could be avoided if developers adressed some of the issues people bring up constantly. Even in this post you propose that ally collision should be removed - but it never happened, for some #*!%ing reason. I've also seen many people say that they would mind the self-damage, even in its insta-kill state IF our weapons were strong enough to warrant it. But someone at DE really doesn't like that idea so here's that. Self-damage is another victim of a lacking effort in manually balancing CATEGORIES of weapons. I hate it when such systems, are half-assed, for me its all or nothing - do it good, or don't do it at all. And it seems DE finally realized that they just can't do the "good" with self-damage in place.

Shield-gating probably plays a big part in the removal of self-damage too. I'm pretty sure that complaints about self-damage would die down with that system in place because I noticed that a lot of enemy encounters while I'm using an AoE weapon end in 1 strike - my strike lmao. I get the jump on the enemies, fire a rocket, they don't even get to hit me because I'm also in the air and enemies get the accuracy debuff(which will also get an effectiveness increase in a following update). Meaning, that I have invuln frames at the ready to defend me from either my own exposives or enemy fire in majority of cases

Some people might not mind self-damage if the rewards were nutty enough to justify it, but you have to remember that implicit pressure of being by-far the best output would also push people who still don't want to engage with it into feeling obliged to do so. Which is partly why I offered the other side of the equation as well. Bring the risk down partially, then people have less to complain about, so they can bring the reward up where it ought to be. Then, since the formula variables are easily tweaked, it's not a massive undertaking to account for that 'worthwhile but not obliging' bump in damage output.

Shield-gating I would actually argue should not apply to self-damage, though. It's too absolute, just like the 'solutions' of capped/percentile health damage. Shield gates should be for things that aren't under your direct control - like the historic Ballista no-scope one-shot which is why they have a delay and visual tell now - so that you can't just get blindsided and killed before you can react. Especially when there are units ludicrously beyond the common-sense power curve for their level (looking at you, Grineer Seeker).
On the other hand, since self-damage is the player's mistake, the player's trigger-pull, that's not a 'cheap shot' any more. It should be allowed to go right on through. Allowing an absolute gated freebie brings the risk of the gameplay loop of "careless self-damage shot hits gate, use alternate gun/melee until gated, repeat". It's a grey area but I don't think that's a positive loop since it still promotes that carelessness.

Arguably, for the same reason, invuln frames should also not protect from self-damage. We can see hints as to why already with the Revenant/Bramma abuse.

[Lone_Dude]

49 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Some people might not mind self-damage if the rewards were nutty enough to justify it, but you have to remember that implicit pressure of being by-far the best output would also push people who still don't want to engage with it into feeling obliged to do so. Which is partly why I offered the other side of the equation as well. Bring the risk down partially, then people have less to complain about, so they can bring the reward up where it ought to be. Then, since the formula variables are easily tweaked, it's not a massive undertaking to account for that 'worthwhile but not obliging' bump in damage output.

The KPS-related issue of AoE weapons is certainly a thing, yes. I don't think, however, that people who strongly dislike the self-damage mechanic would throw themselves at it because we have multiple high-KPS non-self-damage weapon variants. But I do agree that the solution was never as simple as "just make every AoE weapon as strong as Bramma lmao". In the end it still comes down to mechanics surrounding the self-damage weaponry - game requires you to have high KPS, the amount of enemies we kill matters more than the "quality" of said kills. Only a limited amount of enemies can withstand AoE barrage and such enemies do not appear often enough in terms of group per group spawns.

49 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Shield-gating I would actually argue should not apply to self-damage, though. It's too absolute, just like the 'solutions' of capped/percentile health damage. Shield gates should be for things that aren't under your direct control - like the historic Ballista no-scope one-shot which is why they have a delay and visual tell now - so that you can't just get blindsided and killed before you can react. Especially when there are units ludicrously beyond the common-sense power curve for their level (looking at you, Grineer Seeker).
On the other hand, since self-damage is the player's mistake, the player's trigger-pull, that's not a 'cheap shot' any more. It should be allowed to go right on through. Allowing an absolute gated freebie brings the risk of the gameplay loop of "careless self-damage shot hits gate, use alternate gun/melee until gated, repeat". It's a grey area but I don't think that's a positive loop since it still promotes that carelessness.

Oh you bet people would exploit the S#&$ out of that lmao. And if it worked the way you proposed people would complain twice as hard about self-damage, using arguments such as "well why does shield gating work if I get shot by a bombard but not when I shoot myself?!". Considering that you dislike the idea of limiting self-damage with %-based or flat numbers, self-damage would basically remain the same(since, from what I understand you still want self-damage to remain as something LETHAL), meaning that the situation we're currently in would happen eventually. Tweaking subtleties like these is a difficult task, and as I said, I think this is why the self-damage is being removed completely.

I think even the system DE are currently planning to replace the self-damage with is kind of lacking. The knockback on what is basically a direct impact is lengthy enough to cause some problems(as I mentioned in one of my previous replies, being displaced is a dangerous thing in warframe), what I'm not happy with is the stagger - if its too short it won't even matter for most weapons, since they're slow enough already and stagger will basically be equal to a period of time you can't use your gun anyway, meaning that if you got rid of the group of enemies that were posing a direct threat to you, the short stagger won't matter at all. I repeat myself, but I think that just tweaking self-damage alone won't ever be enough for a proper risk/reward system, since it will be too 1-dimensional to fine-tune.

49 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Arguably, for the same reason, invuln frames should also not protect from self-damage. We can see hints as to why already with the Revenant/Bramma abuse.

I disagree with this one, if a frame is specialized to be invulnerable it certainly shouldn't die even from self-damage.

However, don't think that I disregard it completely.

I think its more of a frame design issue than a self-damage issue. Lets take Revenant or Hildryn - they're the go-to lazy survivors when it comes to invulnerability. "TO USE SELF DAMAGING WEAPONS PROPERLY U GOTTA USE REVENANT/HILDRYN ITS DUMB" - probably heard that one, didn't you? That's because their kits allow an easy(literally passive for Hildryn lmao) access to what is basically a god-mode. On the other hand, lets take Wisp as an example - she has an invul access as well, but it comes from her 2 and its rather short, meaning that you gotta stay active in order to utilize it. It allows a niche playstyle of being able to face-tank an insta-kill, even from your own weapon IF you expect it and planned for it.  Ain't so bad, don't you think? I use it from time to time when playing with Komorex/Glaive. Quick 2 cast and I get a window where I can be sure that nothing can harm me. So, once again, it goes outside the realms of self-damage alone.

As a side note, using AoE weapons as Revenant is a smol brain endeavor - Bigg brains slap it on Wukong lmao. Don't even have to AIM OR JUMP.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Lone_Dude

[(XBOX)GodMasterTP]

On 2020-02-28 at 7:33 PM, TheLexiConArtist said:

Obligatory seed from the workshop thread:

 

That's the long and the short of it, up there. But as can be traced back quite easily in my post history, I've had a long history of preserving and defending the role of self-damage in Warframe.

Who thought this was a good solution?

Oh, that's right. The vocal player minority who don't actually like explosives. Because explosives, naturally, come with the drawback of putting yourself at some risk.

 

What about the players who like that? Who see that they had all the information necessary to not hit themselves when they triggered that explosion? Who accept that they died because of their own judgement?

Why are they not allowed to have their weapon niche when Warframe is all about developing wide variety over tall progression depth?

 

The ONLY problems with self damage lie in three factors:

1. When you do not have the information to predict where the damage event will happen. 
   1. Cyanex homing projectiles could not be properly predicted. Self-damage was appropriately removed for gameplay purposes in this case.
   2. It could be argued that lingering triggered explosives (Penta etc.) exhibit this factor. Supplying small UI marker elements on your (limited number of) lingering explosive payloads could solve this.
2. When your allies' hitboxes get in the way.
   1. Due to Warframe's general pacing, this cannot be allowed. It also interferes with non-self-damage gameplay. Ally collision should simply be removed unless there is a use case for it, e.g. sticking bombs to buddies you can trigger later.
3. A distorted scaling of risk and reward.
   1. This is the BIG one but it is one that can be SOLVED by simply using a formula. The problem is that, for enemy health which scales up rapidly while player health scales finitely, having a linear link between modding output and increasing self-damage cannot adequately keep the risk/reward ratio in line.

 

Resolving self-damage scaling:

We do not use flat damage values, as these become irrelevant depending on your warframe or buffs. Irrelevant (or zero, obviously) cannot be allowed as this breaks the risk/reward connection.

We do not use percentage damage values, as these defy build mitigation. Tank frames (person in bomb-protective suit) should, obviously, be more resilient to their own explosive's damage as compared to a paper frame (person in shorts and t-shirt).

 

We need to apply a diminishing return factor. An elastic bond between output and self-damage that stretches with modding output so that it can scale to fatal levels but doesn't do so until the output (reward) is also as significant.

I am just an armchair mathematician, but some time ago I suggested the equation thus:

D * ( 1 - ( X / ( D ^ ( Y / D ) ) )

Where D = DAMAGE; X = DIMINISHING FACTOR; Y = DIMINISH THRESHOLD.

Tweaking X and Y in that formula can squash and stretch the damage progression drastically.

Example:

Y = 100; X = 1

D(500) = 355 self-damage (appx 71%)

D(5000) = 783 self-damage (appx 15.7%)

D(1000000) = 1380 self-damage (appx 0.14%)

At the maximum diminishing factor of 1, we can see that massive outputs are still 'survivable'.

Y = 100; X = 0.99

D(500) = 357 self-damage (appx 71.4%)

D(5000) = 825 self-damage (appx 16.5%)

D(1000000) = 11366 self-damage (appx 1.14%)

Reducing the rate of diminish allows fatal self-damage to scale down into higher accessible levels.

Y = 30; X = 0.99

D(500) = 159 self-damage (appx 32%)

D(5000) = 296 self-damage (appx 6%)

D(1000000) = 10410 self-damage (appx 1.04%)

Reducing the point of diminishment lowers the floor of reduced damage at small values, while preserving most of the upper-boundary risk (depending on rate) at higher values.

 

I'm not saying that's a perfect formula. But it's a proof of concept.

Self damage can be kept mechanically intact, and at most, only needs formulaic fixing to correct risk-to-reward.

 

Keep self damage.

 

-> Niche preference

-> The "vocal minority" is supposedly the other 90% that hate this. 

This post is garbage.

[CopperBezel]

20 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

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?

Can I just note that beams are the most boring weapon type ever and I wouldn't be at all sad to see them go away? 

[TheLexiConArtist]

2 minutes ago, (XB1)XG1anBl4derX said:

-> Niche preference

-> The "vocal minority" is supposedly the other 90% that hate this. 

This post is garbage.

--> Niche preference.. of an equally niche portion of weapon options.

--> ^{[citation needed]}

At least you got one out of three statements totally accurate - self-identifying your post as indeed awful.

 

2 minutes ago, CopperBezel said:

Can I just note that beams are the most boring weapon type ever and I wouldn't be at all sad to see them go away? 

Absolutely. It helps illustrate the point how people can dislike some category personally and still carry on with the rest of the game regardless. And that there's a band of 'dislike' where you only wouldn't mind seeing them gone, not that you actively want them gone.

By previous categorisation of the opinion spread, this would put you in the category 2 out of 4 where beam weapons are concerned, right?

[ScarecroM]

I find it extremely hard to believe that there are actually enough people that struggle to an extreme degree with self damage that DE decided to remove it. It's so easy to avoid. Do people really want DE to believe that they're so incompetent that they regularly die repeatedly from self damage? I can only assume that DE is shelling out to a vocal minority, and to me, the implications of that is more concerning than the fact that self damage is being removed.

As for the fact that self damage is being removed, all it means to me is that sounds like an easy game is being made easier. I'll have to wait and see how the game feels with its removal before I make any real judgement call, but dying from self damage never really frustrated me to any degree, so I'm more-or-less neutral on it. I do think that it provided a fairly reasonable risk vs. reward factor to extreme burst damage aoe weapons... like it should in any video game, and the self aoe demonstrated doesn't look like a suitable replacement as it's practically nothing. Overall I don't think this would affect my personal gameplay to a meaningful degree, but how long before ta few people demand the removal of something they don't like that will?

 

[devildevil21]

Honestly I feel like DE just did an awful thing after the workshop part 2.

 

I would agree the removal of self damage, buff of 20% on dmg and adding a stagger effect would be great for AoE weapons that currently have self damage, since it's not fun to one-shot you just because a teammate decided to show up in front of you (happened to me so many times...).

BUT, what I find ridiculous is that DE decided to remove the 20% dmg buff, keep the stagger and add stagger effects to EVERY AoE weapon (including staticor which is dumb since staticor has a huge AoE and is meant to be shot relatively up close since it travels so slowly when charged), and to top it all off, they added a 90% dmg fall off! I am talking about NINETY PERCENT. You will deal only 10% of the dmg to "far away" enemies.

The quote they used is the more accurate the player is the more deadly he is, but we're talking about weapons designed to hit SEVERAL enemies at the same time in different positions. If we're dealing LESS damage the further the enemy is from the center (which is a very common situation in a crowded area) and we're using weapons that never had self dmg but now have a self stagger, we can admit that AoE weapons just received a HUGE nerf. Maybe not so much in damage but DEFINITELY an increasse on the annoying factor of using AoE weapons.

Edited March 4, 2020 by devildevil21

[(XBOX)Red Dough Boy]

4 minutes ago, ScarecroM said:

I find it extremely hard to believe that there are actually enough people that struggle to an extreme degree with self damage that DE decided to remove it. It's so easy to avoid. Do people really want DE to believe that they're so incompetent that they regularly die repeatedly from self damage? I can only assume that DE is shelling out to a vocal minority, and to me, the implications of that is more concerning than the fact that self damage is being removed.

As for the fact that self damage is being removed, all it means to me is that sounds like an easy game is being made easier. I'll have to wait and see how the game feels with its removal before I make any real judgement call, but dying from self damage never really frustrated me to any degree, so I'm more-or-less neutral on it. I do think that it provided a fairly reasonable risk vs. reward factor to extreme burst damage aoe weapons... like it should in any video game, and the self aoe demonstrated doesn't look like a suitable replacement as it's practically nothing. Overall I don't think this would affect my personal gameplay to a meaningful degree, but how long before ta few people demand the removal of something they don't like that will?

 

If there was no risk to using explosive weapons then they would be too good, as it is you can still knock yourself down which is a death sentence at higher levels. Other weapons don't do that, and as stated explosive weapons lack in a good few categories compared to more traditional weapons. Low ammo count, poor magazine size, charge times for shots on several weapons, and several won't kill enemies at higher levels due to resistances. Plenty of enemies have resistance to blast as well meaning it's not the best status to bring against every enemy, heat is a better option in a lot of fights. 

 

Bringing up other games I'll supply once again that Warframe doesn't have the typical engagements that other games do. Explosive weapons are used in fights where you try to get rid of an enemy quickly and even then you can't use explosives all the time since there's a risk to yourself and low capacity of things like rockets and grenades. Underslung grenade launchers are one of my favorite things to equip in a lot of shooters due to the ability to have a rifle, and have the ability to frag enemies in cover and destroy light vehicles. If blast did a significant amount of damage to armor or there were more vehicles to fight in Warframe then I could see the concern for explosive weapons being used too much or being too good, as it is bringing an explosive weapon now means you've just turned into your own worst enemy and you have to use the weapon with such caution that it's not worth using in a lot of scenarios where other weapons would be more useful. 

We can deploy on every mission with a melee weapon, rockets and explosive weapons are not going to be used at those ranges. 

[(NSW)StoneGhost]

11 hours ago, Lone_Dude said:

How very objective and unemotional. Farting out "Im just right ure dumb" sure is a good way to discuss literally anything, a way of an intellectual - I respect that. Run along then, feel free to lurk around and S#&$ out some nonarguments once you get too upset to sit and watch people actually having a conversation lmao

I enjoy your sad attempts at seeming witty. Please grace us with another. 

[SpringRocker]

On 2020-02-28 at 2:33 PM, TheLexiConArtist said:

D * ( 1 - ( X / ( D ^ ( Y / D ) ) )

Where D = DAMAGE; X = DIMINISHING FACTOR; Y = DIMINISH THRESHOLD.

Tweaking X and Y in that formula can squash and stretch the damage progression drastically.

Example:

Y = 100; X = 1

D(500) = 355 self-damage (appx 71%)

D(5000) = 783 self-damage (appx 15.7%)

D(1000000) = 1380 self-damage (appx 0.14%)

If people read and had the fore thought regarding the costs of removing self-damage (that and further mitigation via shield gating)... I'm sure almost all would agree with you.

I don't understand why people think self-damage would just be removed with no other mechanic changed to go along with it. Talking about the AOE changes.

[WisdomOfTheWoods]

Aside from unpredictable situations like other players, warframe skills, pets, and the balancing ratio of self damage versus what the weapon can actually do, I simply dont see why anyone would complain about self damage on an explosive weapon. It is about as brain-dead as complaining that your ham sandwich has ham in it. The people who want self-damage removed outright will have to now reflect on the consequence that a lot of those same weapons must shoulder a nerf in order to justify removing self-damage.

Id like to also point out weapons that SHOULDN'T have been affected, WERE affected. Blind complaining about self-damage led DE to believe a kuva chakkhurr nerf on its AoE was a good idea, which it has already traded benefits in order to have. Now no one is going to claim the chakkhurr is better than the Komorex, if they even did beforehand.

Congratulations, haters. By believing selfishly that a balancing game mechanic should be wantonly scrapped (just cause you got salty over dying to bad aim, or other problems that could be addressed instead), you convinced DE to flip the table on AoE weapons with disastrous results. I hope you are happy, and if not, your squealing was in vain.

[WisdomOfTheWoods]

I would also like to add that anyone responding to TheLexiConArtist should actually read and objectively digest what they initially said. Their critiques are pretty airtight from an objective stance, and thus-far the majority of people to raise objections to them stoop to logical fallacies and highly-subjective retorts.

[Tyreaus]

I think an important bit to consider is that, were self-damage changed in any measurable capacity (even via something the OP suggests), they may very well have gone through the AoE nerfs. To quote, "we want to make sure we can iterate upwardly...." So their plan seems to be, "overnerf to start, buff as needed".

EDIT: Especially with the shield gating bit, which one can use to negate a huge chunk of self-damage regardless of the maths behind it.

Edited March 5, 2020 by Tyreaus
Phrasing, yay

[IncuBB]

Chroma-bots...
Chroma-bots everywhere...

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, IncuBB said:

Chroma-bots...
Chroma-bots everywhere...

I hear the Wizard of Oz can get a brain for that straw-man you're constructing. Certainly isn't anything else, considering I already pointed out how I've played each individual Nyx more than both Chromas combined.

Besides, nobody was killing themselves with that self-damage unless they actively tried to, after all, it's pretty counter-intuitive to kill yourself in the process of buffing up.

But hey, appreciate the bump all the same.

[SpringRocker]

4 hours ago, IncuBB said:

Chroma-bots...
Chroma-bots everywhere...

Nope, the only time I touched Chroma was for MR then back into the closet he went. Saying that people that like self-damage must all be Chromas is kind of like saying that people that want it gone just want to make Warframe even easier and and play itself.

Self-damage was the only drawback for some weapons and the only reason why people didn't spam explosives at point blank. Now with it gone you see people actually running up to enemies and shooting into the ground.

I guess aiming is too hard right? That's why people like you lash out and call people a "Chroma" as an insult (some logic).

[IncuBB]

58 минут назад, SpringRocker сказал:

Nope, the only time I touched Chroma was for MR then back into the closet he went. Saying that people that like self-damage must all be Chromas is kind of like saying that people that want it gone just want to make Warframe even easier and and play itself.

Self-damage was the only drawback for some weapons and the only reason why people didn't spam explosives at point blank. Now with it gone you see people actually running up to enemies and shooting into the ground.

I guess aiming is too hard right? That's why people like you lash out and call people a "Chroma" as an insult (some logic).

Well... If you take Chroma as "insult" - you have some serious problems, mah dude...
Also, if that triggers you - isn't this is a clear sign that i score critical hit, lol?

[SpringRocker]

1 hour ago, IncuBB said:

Well... If you take Chroma as "insult" - you have some serious problems, mah dude...
Also, if that triggers you - isn't this is a clear sign that i score critical hit, lol?

Wow, no meme this time? AND you're speaking to me specifically?

Seems like you're the one triggered my "Now with it gone you see people actually running up to enemies and shooting into the ground" remark.

[Endorphinz]

I already mentioned that self-damage should be present, just make it a flat number, unaffected by mods, unique to each weapon without any fancy math needed. 100 damage to yourself for a misfired Ogris rocket, for instance. Maybe 30 for a Acceltra rocket. It doesn't need to be exceedingly dangerous but a sharp reminder that you need to respect these weapons still, which is still a step up from fearing the weapons as we did previously.

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, Endorphinz said:

I already mentioned that self-damage should be present, just make it a flat number, unaffected by mods, unique to each weapon without any fancy math needed. 100 damage to yourself for a misfired Ogris rocket, for instance. Maybe 30 for a Acceltra rocket. It doesn't need to be exceedingly dangerous but a sharp reminder that you need to respect these weapons still, which is still a step up from fearing the weapons as we did previously.

That's literally what the old Tonkor model was (at 50), and we know how that turned out. All these restricted, unscaling risks have a flaw somewhere in the interpretation. Percent health doesn't respect the logic of glass vs. tank. Flat unscaled does nothing. Capped flat returns it to a 'pick X to be exempt' model.

While the scales are different and could do with being addressed per formula in first post, the only logical risk interpretation is to keep it unbound so there's all the player options. Go for enough power, fatal risks. Choose to select or mod defensively and you get more leeway. If anything, it's just that, due to the differing scale models, that 'fatal risk' level came too early, making it a less nuanced decision and more of an obligation if you wanted it to do any notable damage at all - notwithstanding Cautious Shot.

[Endorphinz]

15 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

That's literally what the old Tonkor model was (at 50), and we know how that turned out. All these restricted, unscaling risks have a flaw somewhere in the interpretation. Percent health doesn't respect the logic of glass vs. tank. Flat unscaled does nothing. Capped flat returns it to a 'pick X to be exempt' model.

While the scales are different and could do with being addressed per formula in first post, the only logical risk interpretation is to keep it unbound so there's all the player options. Go for enough power, fatal risks. Choose to select or mod defensively and you get more leeway. If anything, it's just that, due to the differing scale models, that 'fatal risk' level came too early, making it a less nuanced decision and more of an obligation if you wanted it to do any notable damage at all - notwithstanding Cautious Shot.

I respectfully disagree, this is a different beast of game where complete and utter destruction of oneself is very much a hindrance given the pacing and pve nature of the game. Some forgiveness is required. That's why shield gating was so highly anticipated, right? People are tired of the one-hit kill disrupting your gameplay. In the light of self-stagger, I don't see anything wrong with tonkor's old self-damage model.

I actually think self-stagger should be kept in addition to minor damage, now that I think of it. That's my ideal game plan, at least.

[TheLexiConArtist]

Post-devstream bump because there was no mention of this awful change being addressed.

DE, it was a mistake. Even the people who didn't like self-damage hate the result they got in exchange.

Return the self-damage risk play-style niche - which was only a small proportion of options anyway, harming nobody if they didn't opt into it - and go back to the drawing board for addressing the balance of self-damaging weapons and other AOEs. We've given plenty of pointers for you to act on for a real solution.

The self-stagger, unless you simply circumvent it entirely with mods/frame abilities, is un-fun but not a threat. It should never have been blindly added to the many, many sources the player cannot realistically predict and/or avoid.

Giving everything falloff took the AOE out of AOE weapons that were already having trouble performing, while the complete non-risk means that whatever did perform continues to do so unhindered.

Edited March 13, 2020 by TheLexiConArtist