Solution to the 90% explosion falloff - Nerf kuva bramma.

[Fellas92]

Simple solution - nerf kuva bramma, and increase the aoe damage falloff back to 50%. This way other explosive weapons won't suck as much, and bramma won't be stealing the spotlight anymore.

Will salty people cry over this post ? Yes. But I'd rather prefer a single weapon get nerfed, instead of all explosive weapons suffering for it.

We all know that the kuva bramma is overpowered.

Edited March 4, 2020 by Fellas92

[EvasionChaos]

Hate to say it, but you're kinda right. Bramma is really the only explosive weapon warranting self damage because it's a nuke launcher, but with self damage gone the only other explosive weapon I see being somewhat used is the Zarr

[(XBOX)Red Dough Boy]

It's better for one weapon to be affected instead of all aoe weapons. I wonder if the bubble that Lenz makes will be affected by the falloff, it stands to reason that anything in that blast range should take full damage because of the way the weapon works. Other weapons use shaped charges so I can see them not having the same blast radius, but something that purposefully detonates in a wide range shouldn't be cut down the same way. 

I wonder if they bumped it to 90% after people had issues with self damage being cut out entirely. I'd prefer 50% too instead of 90%. 

[Oreades]

My only question here is as follows....... because they are adding all these mechanics to "tweak" Explosive weapons....... are they finally going to put an end to enemies that are just blanket immune to explosive weapons because you didn't "hit the pixel" because said pixel simply ignores any and all non direct damage which is what 99% of these weapons do. 

[NinjaZeku]

A nerfed Bramma could still be plenty good,
while that 90% falloff is kind of terrifying in just how badly it'll likely stomp AoE weapons into the dirt.

DE why.

[Kainosh]

I would replace Cluster with Shaped charge.  Coz clusters got a bit old .

Small, focused explosion that fires a buckshot of molten metal through target (infinite punch through, high damage per pellet ), hitting stuff behind it in a wide 5 meter cone.    

 

IMO, Bows should always deal more damage with Direct hit...and explosions or any other effect should just add some flavor.    Bramma does it a bit wrong, dealing massive damage even if you shoot the floor. Kinda lame.  I was discouraged to get one the moment i saw it in action.

[GPrime96]

A lot of other Explosives would still suck

[Steel_Rook]

I'm personally fine with 90% damage falloff, as long as it's not linear. Quadratic falloff with that low a boundary could work. Look at something like:

distance_multiplier = -0.9*distance^2 + 1

For distance 0, that gives you 1, or 100% damage. For distance 1 (i.e. max distance equal to radius), that gives you 0.1, or 10% damage. Crucially, though, for distance 0.5 (i.e. half-way to the edge of the AoE), that gives you 0.775, or 77.5% damage, NOT the 45% damage that linear damage dropoff would have. I mean, sure - it's an ugly-ish equation that you probably don't want players to see, but it does the job.

 

2 hours ago, Oreades said:

My only question here is as follows....... because they are adding all these mechanics to "tweak" Explosive weapons....... are they finally going to put an end to enemies that are just blanket immune to explosive weapons because you didn't "hit the pixel" because said pixel simply ignores any and all non direct damage which is what 99% of these weapons do. 

Yeah, that too. For one thing, weapons with an AoE component very often DON'T score headshots even when you hit the enemy in the head. This is because the game will often count the AoE component as a hit somewhere on the body and override the actual headshot. Warframe desperately needs Payday 2 shotgun mechanics. See, Payday 2 shotguns deal full damage on EVERY pellet, but only one pellet per shot is allowed to actually deal said damage. No, I don't know why - hear me out. Any pellets which hit the head are prioritised, meaning that THEY will be the ones chosen to deal damage rather than pellets which hit the body. Even if I did have to ask mod-makers to do the same with Bulldozer face shields and SWAT Turret weak points. Warframe ought to do the same. If one of the main raycasts/projectiles from a weapon hits a weak point, count that hit as a weak point hit even if the weapon's AoE component also hits other parts of the body. In other words - make the Opticor worth using against Eidolons.

Additionally, I'd say AoE weapons ought to get partial headshot multipliers even if you don't land direct headshots. World of Tanks (for all its flaws) has a clever system for determining explosive damage on non-penetrating shots. Basically, it'll check distances between the explosion centre and parts of the enemy (vehicle in that case), then pick the point where the most damage could be done and deal that amount of damage, obviously scaled for distance. Warframe could do the same. Any shot which lands within, say, 20% of the explosion radius of a weak point, deal damage as though that weak point had been hit, but with the weak point / headshot multiplier scaled down by the distance between the explosion centre and the "head." If that includes several weak points, calculate against all and pick the one with the most damage. Deal THAT damage and discard potential damage which could have been done to other weak points or body parts caught in the blast.

For bonus points, use the formula above to scale the headshot multiplier. Thus, Tonkor grenade to the face would deal 100% damage for full headshot damage (full critical headshot if it crit) while a shot 1.2 meters from the head (say into the guy's knee caps) would deal 87.8% damage at 20% bonus weak point damage.

[kwlingo]

They need to make it so AOE only becomes active when hitting a target not the ground. They want skill trade off for damage like shield gating so add this same effect to explosion weapons, If you can trigger a head shot the radial damage does the full damage, if you hit the body then the radial damage falls low key, and if your aim is horrible you cannot even trigger the AOE explosions the weapon can do. Ill be happy with anyone out performing me with skill and not random shooting at corners of map.

[NinjaZeku]

58 minutes ago, kwlingo said:

They need to make it so AOE only becomes active when hitting a target

Please no.

AoE weapons are supposed to hit multiple enemies at once with their splash damage, that's kinda the main idea.

Getting a little extra from a direct hit is fine, but the majority of the damage should come via the explosion.

[Test-995]

10 hours ago, Fellas92 said:

Will salty people cry over this post ? Yes. But I'd rather prefer a single weapon get nerfed, instead of all explosive weapons suffering for it.

Fairly lot of explosives still sucks with 50% falloff, just buff everything else

[TheLexiConArtist]

6 hours ago, Steel_Rook said:

I'm personally fine with 90% damage falloff, as long as it's not linear. Quadratic falloff with that low a boundary could work

Or - for a similar breed of equation - you could just have 0% falloff and keep self-damage, making it scale properly for player output compared to player health. The only real problem of the damage is that it's a flat percentage of output, but our health doesn't have as many or as high of multiplicative factors as damage.

Then you can leave the soft boy AOEs as they already are, and we have - surprise, surprise - a variety of viable options depending on what any given player likes and dislikes. Because not everyone will (or needs to) like and use every weapon.

[Test-995]

1 minute ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Then you can leave the soft boy AOEs as they already are, and we have - surprise, surprise - a variety of viable options depending on what any given player likes and dislikes. Because not everyone will (or needs to) like and use every weapon.

Not really, we have melees and abilities, there wasn't much of reasons to use explosive weapons even before the nerf, self damage was the cherry on top.

Now self damages are replaced by damage fall off.

[TheLexiConArtist]

2 minutes ago, Test-995 said:

Not really, we have melees and abilities, there wasn't much of reasons to use explosive weapons even before the nerf, self damage was the cherry on top.

Now self damages are replaced by damage fall off.

So damage risk/reward is replaced by damage no-risk/no-reward. That's a great change. /s

Reduce the risks to scale sensibly with the player's potential health vs. potential damage. Using this new accuracy of risk/reward ratio, improve the damage output for the weapons which aren't already the Bramma.

People still not liking self-damage after that have more than 90% of the other weapons to choose from. There was no need to remove it and ruin an entire weapon archetype for the sake of greedy entitlement.

[Test-995]

5 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

So damage risk/reward is replaced by damage no-risk/no-reward. That's a great change. /s

Reduce the risks to scale sensibly with the player's potential health vs. potential damage. Using this new accuracy of risk/reward ratio, improve the damage output for the weapons which aren't already the Bramma.

People still not liking self-damage after that have more than 90% of the other weapons to choose from. There was no need to remove it and ruin an entire weapon archetype for the sake of greedy entitlement.

No, damage instadeath/meh-reward has replaced by damage no-risk/zero-reward.

And considering how easy it is to heal our frames, damage that doesn't kill us is pretty much pointless as "risk", changing systems like that is almost equivalent to removing damage.

What's the point of making people unhappy when there is no reason to do so?

[kwlingo]

2 hours ago, NinjaZeku said:

Getting a little extra from a direct hit is fine, but the majority of the damage should come via the explosion.

From what I heard radial damage if getting reduced and also the range of explosion also.

[TheLexiConArtist]

2 minutes ago, Test-995 said:

No, damage instadeath/meh-reward has replaced by damage no-risk/zero-reward.

And considering how easy it is to heal our frames, damage that doesn't kill us is pretty much pointless as "risk", changing systems like that is almost equivalent to removing damage.

What's the point of making people unhappy when there is no reason to do so?

Well, that's the point. Not a cap of damage, just making it so that it becomes fatal to us closer to where we expect to need it to be to remain fatal to our enemies.

So, Serration might not make it fatal to us just as it'd fall off quickly against opposition, but a 6+ damage-mod loadout is more likely to be approaching the mutual murder threshold.

There was no reason to remove it since it's never forced on a player directly (e.g. Sortie condition) or indirectly (too powerful, obligation overrides personal view) and there are so many other things to choose from. So - like you said yourself - what's the point of making those people who like a risky playstyle unhappy?

[Test-995]

1 minute ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Well, that's the point. Not a cap of damage, just making it so that it becomes fatal to us closer to where we expect to need it to be to remain fatal to our enemies.

So, Serration might not make it fatal to us just as it'd fall off quickly against opposition, but a 6+ damage-mod loadout is more likely to be approaching the mutual murder threshold.

So basically not that different from old one? "sacrifice damage massively to survive, or use actually viable build and die" style.

That's still unnecessary punishment for using decent weapons.

6 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

There was no reason to remove it since it's never forced on a player directly (e.g. Sortie condition) or indirectly (too powerful, obligation overrides personal view) and there are so many other things to choose from. So - like you said yourself - what's the point of making those people who like a risky playstyle unhappy?

FIne, make it a config 🙄

Possibly because it's just no good for plenty of players, and i didn't thought about anyone who likes to die in a game (yes, there might be someone who likes old lich more)

[(XBOX)WolfKingLeo]

or we could just make other explosive weapons to be on par with kuva bramma

Edited March 5, 2020 by (XB1)WolfKingLeo

[Steel_Rook]

40 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

So damage risk/reward is replaced by damage no-risk/no-reward. That's a great change. /s

You can be as sarcastic as you want, it doesn't change the truth of this statement. The damage was simply not worth the risk, so the risk was taken away for the most part. That's how balance works. You were given a compromise proposal and you chose to respond to it with sarcasm, so I feel somewhat unmotivated to meet you half-way.

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 minute ago, Test-995 said:

So basically not that different from old one? "sacrifice damage massively to survive, or use actually viable build and die" style.

That's still unnecessary punishment for using decent weapons.

FIne, make it a config 🙄

Possibly because it's just no good for plenty of players, and i didn't thought about anyone who likes to die in a game (yes, there might be someone who likes old lich more)

Well, no. The old one is "die whether viable or not" and the new is "increasingly risky as increasingly rewarding". You could choose a build that two-shots enemies if you're worried about one-shotting yourself. Doubling output is always less than doubling self-damage, that's the point of having a diminishing factor.

The point is not liking the act of killing yourself any more than a skydiver would actually like their parachute to fail with terminal results. It's in the risk factor. It's in overcoming that risk through mastery.

2 minutes ago, Steel_Rook said:

You can be as sarcastic as you want, it doesn't change the truth of this statement. The damage was simply not worth the risk, so the risk was taken away for the most part. That's how balance works. You were given a compromise proposal and you chose to respond to it with sarcasm, so I feel somewhat unmotivated to meet you half-way.

The damage wasn't worth the risk because the risk was linearly tied to it whereas actual modding is not equal (scale of Damage > scale of Survivability). The damage wasn't worth the risk because people were so busy crying over the fact they can make a fatal mistake that DE was disinclined to offer more damage (see Cautious Shot mockery).

Besides, if anything I was mocking DE's change, not your offering. Especially the latest one that completely kills off reward. I mean, sure, I was raising concerns about Tonkor Meta myself, but the second lesson of those days was the collateral damage that killed every other explosive because they didn't just give Tonkor the self-damage it needed immediately. A mistake now repeated by making all AOEs boring and mediocre because they won't just let the self-damage risk niche remain fundamentally, mechanically intact.

[Test-995]

1 minute ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

Well, no. The old one is "die whether viable or not" and the new is "increasingly risky as increasingly rewarding". You could choose a build that two-shots enemies if you're worried about one-shotting yourself. Doubling output is always less than doubling self-damage, that's the point of having a diminishing factor.

 Enemy EHPs are ridiculously dynamic in this game, even after the new update, balancing would be mess with such system.

3 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The point is not liking the act of killing yourself any more than a skydiver would actually like their parachute to fail with terminal results. It's in the risk factor. It's in overcoming that risk through mastery.

It's not that different, you'll still die unless you are some robotics that have perfect accuracy, and that's unfair.

[NinjaZeku]

37 minutes ago, kwlingo said:

From what I heard radial damage if getting reduced and also the range of explosion also.

Blast Radius is getting generally enhanced actually, but the falloff from the center is gonna be extreme now at the outer edge.

That's kind of why this topic was made, it's a change many look towards with (justified) dread.

(Also, stuff like adding a stagger drawback on Simulor and Pox ... I certainly question how necessary / sensible that is.)

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 minute ago, Test-995 said:

 Enemy EHPs are ridiculously dynamic in this game, even after the new update, balancing would be mess with such system.

It's not that different, you'll still die unless you are some robotics that have perfect accuracy, and that's unfair.

Not really. The upper boundary of our modding remains as it is. What we're expected to deal with, also, has a definitive boundary. We don't count endurance runs for any balance discussion.
The formula is easily manipulated to provide a line of best fit between having a survivable presence at lower-tier damage (where the player is learning the weapon) and scaling up to higher, eventually fatal risks at that boundary of expectation (player has mastered the weapon).

It's not unfair to die because you made a mistake with self-damage any more than it's unfair to die because you sat stationary in front of a Fomorian murder-laser. You make a mistake, you pay the price, you strive to do better next time. It's predictable risk, the controlling factor is your own judgement.
Again, though, that doesn't mean 'everyone has to get good with self-damage weapons'. It means 'people CAN get good with self-damage weapons, if they enjoy the process of doing so'. You don't like that ultimate risk? That's perfectly acceptable. You demand that risk removed to suit your own personal tastes? No, that's not okay.

[(PSN)Black-Cat-Jinx]

No the solution is not trying to use one stick to hit all balls... (or pucks.... or bird- you get what i mean).

The problem with warframe just like most other games is that instead of treating each weapon or mechanic like it's own thing they just try to neatly package it all together rather it works or not. Just work out what role you want each of the explosive weapons to fill in the game and adjust the physics to meet that role. 

If you try to fix every problem with a hammer, for everything you fix you're going to break something else.