On the change to Venari Heal

[TwistedLogic81]

3 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Likely the default self-healing. I did a test with over 300 power strength to get Venari to 167 then allowed the cryopod's health to drop about 6,000 points before activating Venari. Even though she still marked the cryopod, it was only healing 10 points, the default value. Definitely not 167 per second. I on the other hand went to full health from under 500 in around 4 seconds or so:

So it is definitely not working with defense targets even though you can still mark them.

Ah, that's disappointing.  Thanks for testing Tenno. 

[Jarriaga]

Well, there it is:

8 minutes ago, [DE]Megan said:

We made a hasty change in Hotfix 27.3.6 that removed Venari’s Heal aura from affecting Oplinks AND Defense Targets. Firstly, the terminology of calling Venari’s Defense Target healing a ‘fix’ was incorrect, so apologies there on my behalf. It’s correct to say it was a feature for Venari, considering it had its own Tip for it! The change stemmed from our desire to resolve Operation exploits as quickly as possible, and we didn't communicate this properly.

We’re doing a deeper review on abilities that heal Defense Targets that we can speak to in the coming days.

Apologies as well for the late reply on this topic. We’ll update everyone when we’ve dug deeper and have an action plan.
 

So Venari's original function of healing stationary targets was intentional.

@SneakyErvin & @ShaperOfForm Come back here to argue semantics.

Edited April 1, 2020 by Jarriaga

[rodzzila]

27 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Well, there it is:

Oh, was having a lot of fun reading those two being so wrong and thinking they were right trying to argue the obvious "call it a change not a fix"

[Dragazer]

1 hour ago, [DE]Megan said:

We made a hasty change in Hotfix 27.3.6 that removed Venari’s Heal aura from affecting Oplinks AND Defense Targets. Firstly, the terminology of calling Venari’s Defense Target healing a ‘fix’ was incorrect, so apologies there on my behalf. It’s correct to say it was a feature for Venari, considering it had its own Tip for it! The change stemmed from our desire to resolve Operation exploits as quickly as possible, and we didn't communicate this properly.

We’re doing a deeper review on abilities that heal Defense Targets that we can speak to in the coming days.

Apologies as well for the late reply on this topic. We’ll update everyone when we’ve dug deeper and have an action plan.
 

So I guess anyone who used Venari to heal defense objectives were "exploiting" and should be banned right?

[(PSN)DoctorWho_90250]

4 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

1. Clarifying precedence guides how the tips can be interpreted with regards to existing behaviour. If it was an at-launch you could argue that non-Defense objectives were possibly below intent. Tips happening afterwards signifies that the behaviour was observed in its existing way, and the conclusion drawn from that - its target viability was not considered a bug but a feature, and a tip written about part of the benefits that result.
2. You're attempting to obfuscate the point. The point is not what the tip does state, it is clarifying the nature of what it does not. It does not make any declaration for or against any targets not "Defense Objectives". It doesn't state they should be acceptable, but their omission does not state that they are absolutely not acceptable.
3. They are still healing factors, you are moving the goalposts. Archwings operate exactly as Warframes, having their own dedicated ability sets attached to the same mechanical usage as Warframes do. So Amesha is the strongest proof of concept for its ability to heal static objects. Since this is shared with Vazarin Dash, we can assume safely that regardless of the textual semantics, there are no programmatical semantics which treat an Excavator and a Defense objective differently - ergo, if we could summon an Amesha in Defense, it would heal the Defense objective. 
4. As above.
5. If you want to cite English grammar you should probably start with reading comprehension. A non-exhaustive listing structure, as the tip clearly is (the only logical definition, otherwise Venari wouldn't heal Khora much less anything else) is often explained with the phrase "including, but not limited to". So Venari can heal entities including, but not limited to, Defense objectives.
6. I'll indulge myself a little tu-quoque here: Grammar rules include apostrophes on contractions, which you're lacking severely right there. But, rather than quibble over capitalisation and the debatable catchment thereof (DE are not paragons of absolutely flawless English either, and capitalisation is often used for Dramatic Emphasis as well, it could be merely leading the player's eye to the Important Words) I have instead defeated the argument by proving that no matter how narrow that catchment is, it has been violated by this change.

In conclusion:

Cryopods are a (D/d)efense (O/o)bjective by any distinction. Cryopods can no longer be healed by Venari now that Venari cannot heal static, inanimate entities. QED, it was not a 'fix' as it removed behaviour that was intended. 

Furthermore, since we can see other abilities treat a Cryopod no differently to any other objective that is to be defended (including but not limited to MobDef consoles, Excavation drills, Kuva Survival siphoning towers), we can extend that determined intent to said other objectives - they inherit from the same code class for governing health and effects, but just use a different geometry model and have different events bolted on to work with the mission design - since there has been no statement made that they should differ (unlike OpLinks).

When the person you are arguing against brings up grammar and capitalization as a viable point, and get shut down anyway, you know you won the argument. 😆

[Jarriaga]

3 minutes ago, Dragazer said:

So I guess anyone who used Venari to heal defense objectives were "exploiting" and should be banned right?

If that's the argument, I am getting a ban for sure. At least for my first week of doing the mission with Khora until I gave up and went for a 282% duration 214% range duration Limbo build. 

Edited April 1, 2020 by Jarriaga

[_Tormex_]

On 2020-03-31 at 4:01 PM, Slaytanic93 said:

Following the recent Hotfix, Venari was changed to no longer be able to heal OpLinks, under the justification that OpLinks aren't meant to be affected by any abilities.

So far, so good. It's an event, and supposed to bring some challenge, I guess... No big deal.

But then apparently the possibility of healing defense targets was also removed, any and all defense targets. Why?

This has been a feature since Khora was released, and it was just that, a feature. You guys have listed it as a "fix" to Venari. I am sorry if I come off as rude but it is just ridiculous, I've played this game since 2013 and this is the first time I have been significantly disappointed about a nerf, especially one that comes labeled as a "fix". Please notice this Tip included on the Khora abilities screen. Healing defense objectives has been an intended feature.

There is even less reason to change Venari's stance now. Please reconsider this change. As I said, I have no issues with OpLinks, but removing a long time feature from a Warframe that affects the entire gameplay and not just this particular mission is completely unreasonable. This sort of rationale reminds me of Viver... and what happened to poor trinity... but I'd rather not discuss that.

In the meantime, some other frames remain mostly broken, the general "meta" unchanged, and somehow Venari is the edge that needed to be cut off the equation.

Please, reconsider.

EDIT: It appears my topic in Feedback was merged to another (or many) that was located in general discussion. If you see disconnected discussions or repeating posts, that is the reason.

I feel replaced lol

[Hellmaker2004]

Currently there is not a lot to add but i agree, not with the changes of course.

Mostly here to bump the post add more voice on the matter.

There are some defensive frames that make no sense that they can heal targets, at least unless they have some sort of different interaction. Trinity, for as much as i love her having her fully heal both health and shields on a defense target would make no sense. However; having her heal a small amount and still grant the damage reduction would be fine, instead of not doing neither in most cases as it is now.

Khora is also not in that position, having a 50 HP/s scaling with power Strength is nowhere broken considering the output most mobs have in high levels.

[(PSN)SolarPhantom82]

6 hours ago, Jarriaga said:

Operation exploits

I really hope to God their not calling  Venari’s Heal an exploit. 

 

4 hours ago, Dragazer said:

The change stemmed from our desire to resolve Operation exploits as quickly as possible,

at least they were honest and said it was nerfed because of the event..  DE play the way we want you too,  or get nerfed...

Edited April 2, 2020 by (PS4)SolarPhantom82

[Acos]

I'm glad we all waited for developer response before jumping to conclusions or becoming enraged by our own assumptions for 9 pages. 

[(XBOX)Knight Raime]

6 hours ago, Jarriaga said:

Well, there it is:

So Venari's original function of healing stationary targets was intentional.

" We made a hasty change in Hotfix 27.3.6 that removed Venari’s Heal aura from affecting Oplinks AND Defense Targets. Firstly, the terminology of calling Venari’s Defense Target healing a ‘fix’ was incorrect, so apologies there on my behalf. It’s correct to say it was a feature for Venari, considering it had its own Tip for it! The change stemmed from our desire to resolve Operation exploits as quickly as possible, and we didn't communicate this properly.

We’re doing a deeper review on abilities that heal Defense Targets that we can speak to in the coming days.

Apologies as well for the late reply on this topic. We’ll update everyone when we’ve dug deeper and have an action plan."

This should make me feel better.  But it doesn't.

40 minutes ago, (PS4)SolarPhantom82 said:

I really hope to God their not calling  Venari’s Heal an exploit. 

 

at least they were honest and said it was nerfed because of the event..  DE play the way we want you too,  or get nerfed...

Yeah that's basically peak DE.  Why allow for different playstyles and player creativity when we can just shove our experience down your throat as the only way to play the game.  It's even more appalling when they go back on their own rules because they decide something needs to change specifically for the new piece of content.

17 minutes ago, Acos said:

I'm glad we all waited for developer response before jumping to conclusions or becoming enraged by our own assumptions for 9 pages. 

DE doesn't need to be white knighted.  We're allowed to call them on their BS especially when it's repeat behavior.  If you're perfectly fine with however DE behaves then stick to your own bubble.  Let people who actually care about the game and their time invested criticize DE.  It's the only way the game and devs can improve and become better.

[(PSN)SolarPhantom82]

21 minutes ago, Acos said:

I'm glad we all waited for developer response before jumping to conclusions or becoming enraged by our own assumptions for 9 pages. 

Well its gone form a nerf,  to fixing an exploit.   And it speaks to the reputation DE has given themselves when it comes to how they dealing with nerfs... and you think they would had bothered to reply without the backlash..

[Acos]

9 minutes ago, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

DE doesn't need to be white knighted.  We're allowed to call them on their BS especially when it's repeat behavior.  If you're perfectly fine with however DE behaves then stick to your own bubble.  Let people who actually care about the game and their time invested criticize DE.  It's the only way the game and devs can improve and become better.

"Actually care about the game" That's rich. 

Doesn't make what I said any less true though; You all jumped to conclusions with the same over-dramatized drivel typical of this forum and now you look foolish. 
 

[(XBOX)Knight Raime]

Just now, Acos said:

"Actually care about the game" That's rich. 

Doesn't make what I said any less true though; You all jumped to conclusions with the same over-dramatized drivel typical of this forum and now you look foolish. 
 

Yes.  People who care about things and I truly mean care about things will criticize when it's warrented.  Believe it or not people complain for a reason.  And that reason usually isn't "kek mad cause bad."  If I didn't care about WF at all I wouldn't bother to come here and post still months after i'd quit playing.  People don't really do that.

As i've pointed out already it's not just the specific thing here.  DE is known for calling a gameplay change to fit their agenda a "fix."  It's a larger picture thing.  But I guess if you feel more comfortable writing off legitimate complaints while down talking people that's your prerogative.  I don't know why someone would spend their free time trashing others but who am I to judge.

[Zsword]

Okay, so what I'm getting out of this is: 'In fixing the exploit of Venari healing Oplinks, we disabled it for all other defense objectives. We're looking into the ramifications and potential happy mediums.'

I believe I said earlier in this topic that it's apparent Oplinks are meant to work on a different level from normal health pools: They keep their HP between deploys, and are tracked to external sources for noting 'hey we could use reinforcements' which then can be healed from the station. All this I'm pretty okay with, especially if a future mission makes say, Op Link healing a thing the other team can do with in mission pick ups in a later variant, as opposed to the 'buy 500 HP' we have now. Something like an inverted survival/excavation, where one team is grabbing energy for another team defending their Oplinks? Iunno, could be neat.

That acknowledgement out of the way, Khora I feel doesn't have a lot going for her right as is, and nerfing what little she has is doing no favors. She's a, 'worse for loot but better for killing' Pilferoid, and I have seen some big numbers from whipping but whipping is otherwise an inefficient means of killing things. Also a solid stopper for Demo's in deception. Removing 1/3 of Venari's functionally (cause really, there's enough ways to heal frames and regular allies as is that are just better) and the main functionally that even makes me acknowledge Venari exists actively, (otherwise she's just being another bundle of Fetch and Animal Instincts for me. :x) I could be playing Harrow (CC, Healing), or Hydroid (CC, Loot, Healing with full Syndicate set), or Gara (big numbers 'whip', CC, damage prevention is like healing with shatter shield and Mass Vitrify walls.), and covering those other bases fine with other perks on top of it, with frames that are generally considered much easier to acquire for F2P types. (which I myself play as loyalty to being one as I can on the base piece front.)

Now I suppose one thing I can say is this is coming from a casual completionist of a player. I've tried my hand at literally every frame. (Rounding off a few primes they're in the oven now if anyone wants to profile check me cause people do that.) Like, actually sat down and ran some real missions with them too so I have more than a loose idea, though not necessarily mastery, of each frame, so there's plenty of nuances I don't understand or have mastered and could be missing, but nothing past that point should be considered an exploit so much as just properly optimized play. If there were top tier Khora players chaining a bunch of sentients together, keeping them chained with whip, and having Venari cap off Oplinks I'm not thinking 'Oh my gosh they're cheating and ruining the event', I'm APPLAUDING them for using a frame's entire kit to its fullest and for putting that much effort and focus into what a Limbo can do by pressing 4 and 2. (okay so the Limbo wouldn't heal the Oplinks, but they wouldn't of been damaged in the first place.) ((Also don't nerf Limbo, he's doing what he's intended to do in an environment where he's most universally thanked for it instead of the spite Limbo's normally get.))

[Acos]

Just now, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

  I don't know why someone would spend their free time trashing others but who am I to judge.

Re-read this topic and reflect upon this statement. 

I understand the argument you think you're making; I've been playing this game and providing feedback on it since its' inception; That you are giving me this "I'm a jerk because I really CARE" speech is beyond laughable to me, but that's not really the point I want to focus on. 

There is a correct way to give criticism and then there is this thread. Jumping to conclusions, picking apart statements without understanding them, and villifying everything before an explanation can ever be given and then even once it is STILL choosing to see the worst in something.

I've been reading this forum for seven years too; this crap gets old.

[(XBOX)Knight Raime]

20 minutes ago, Acos said:

Re-read this topic and reflect upon this statement.

By which you mean read over every single comment.  And no, I won't.  Obviously some people can get out of hand.  The fact that you're choosing to label everyone in this thread as if they're all the same as the few outliers here is wrong.

20 minutes ago, Acos said:

I understand the argument you think you're making; I've been playing this game and providing feedback on it since its' inception; That you are giving me this "I'm a jerk because I really CARE" speech is beyond laughable to me, but that's not really the point I want to focus on.

Except that's not what i'm saying.  My statement is two parts.  The first one being we've a right to Criticize DE over this.  Of which you seem to think we don't or you wouldn't be blanket telling people they're a bunch of kids because they decided to make a topic about DE being DE again.  The second part is informing you that all feedback is indeed important.  Even the people who rage.  I'm not saying Tommy with anger management issues isn't in the wrong for calling DE something explicit.  But you have to understand that someone going out of their way to go on DE's own website to leave literally any kind of comment is significant.  Some part of them at some level cares to some degree about what they were playing.

To perhaps convey this better let me try to give an example.  If I go watch a movie that looks mildly interesting based off of the one ad I saw about it and I don't like what I saw i'll probably make some one off comment to a friend or family member that I saw a movie and didn't like it.  And that would be the end of it.  However, if I go to see a movie about a franchise that I have liked for quite sometime and didn't like what I saw i'm more likely to go leave feedback on a movie forum about it.  Or maybe even discuss it in a video on a youtube channel if I was some content creator.

20 minutes ago, Acos said:

There is a correct way to give criticism and then there is this thread. Jumping to conclusions, picking apart statements without understanding them, and villifying everything before an explanation can ever be given and then even once it is STILL choosing to see the worst in something.

Again, writing off the entire thread is wrong.  "Jumping to conclusions" doesn't really hold any merit when as i've mentioned twice now this is a repeat of DE's behavior.  They have an established pattern for how they do things.  Even if we ended up being wrong we can't actually be faulted for it because given the evidence we have on how DE is it makes perfect sense that what happened here could have been what's happened before. And of course i'm still going to be negative about the response.  Because what DE said doesn't solve the whole problem.  It just presents us with a different one.

20 minutes ago, Acos said:

I've been reading this forum for seven years too; this crap gets old.

Then maybe learn to ignore these things you dislike.  No one compels you to enter these threads.  And i'm sure there's something else you could be doing that is not only far more productive than slamming random internet people, but it's also probably more fun then looking at something you don't like.

[Acos]

Just now, (XB1)Knight Raime said:

Much ado about nothing. 

I must have been having a stroke or something because I don't remember addressing the entire thread or even signaling out anyone individually or making half the arguments you're defending. I get the impression that assuming arguments which didn't happen to be a sort of default setting for you so I won't take it personally or point out how insane it is to have spent that much time typing up a response to an argument you assumed I was going to make.  

You didn't provide any evidence of "DE's repeated behavior" at all, by the way. You made a statement and decided it was true. Which, again, default setting I guess? 
 

[(XBOX)Knight Raime]

57 minutes ago, Acos said:

I must have been having a stroke or something because I don't remember addressing the entire thread or even signaling out anyone individually or making half the arguments you're defending. I get the impression that assuming arguments which didn't happen to be a sort of default setting for you so I won't take it personally or point out how insane it is to have spent that much time typing up a response to an argument you assumed I was going to make.  

You didn't provide any evidence of "DE's repeated behavior" at all, by the way. You made a statement and decided it was true. Which, again, default setting I guess? 
 

Oh that's a neat trick I can do that too.  This is what is called as a cop out statement.

If you've been on the forum as long as you stated then I shouldn't have to cite DE's behavior.  As you'd have seen plenty of people "whining" about said examples.  Later.

[(XBOX)TehChubbyDugan]

2 hours ago, Acos said:

"Actually care about the game" That's rich. 

Doesn't make what I said any less true though; You all jumped to conclusions with the same over-dramatized drivel typical of this forum and now you look foolish. 
 

Who jumped to conclusions?  The people mad about it said: 

It was not a fix, because the ability intentionally did that.  We were right.

it was, in fact, a nerf and it was due to the event.  Right again.

Even the jokes about Sancti Magistar and Vazarin Dash getting nerfed next were pretty accurate considering they're now "reviewing" them and anything else that heals objectives.

Who was wrong?  Who was it that was on the conclusion trampoline, next to the conclusion ball pit with the conclusion slide, jumping around with all the conclusions?  Who looks unbelievably, hilariously foolish?  The Forum [DE]fenders performing amazing feats of mental gymnastics trying to twist literally any straw they could grasp to put DE in the right on this one.  "Do you work at DE and know it was intended?  The big fat 'intentional' tag on the ability doesn't mean it was intentional."  "Objectives that you defend are not necessarily 'Defense Objectives.'" Those are real things I've watched you people spout trying to defend this mess.  There was even the guy in this thread trying to argue over the capitalization of the wording in the tip to prove that it wasn't inten- Oh, there's Megan calling it intentional.  This is all the concrete proof that anyone could ever need that people who blindly go along with and defend every choice a developer makes, do in fact exist.

[(PSN)SolarPhantom82]

22 minutes ago, (XB1)TehChubbyDugan said:

Who jumped to conclusions?  The people mad about it said: 

It was not a fix, because the ability intentionally did that.  We were right.

it was, in fact, a nerf and it was due to the event.  Right again.

Even the jokes about Sancti Magistar and Vazarin Dash getting nerfed next were pretty accurate considering they're now "reviewing" them and anything else that heals objectives.

Who was wrong?  Who was it that was on the conclusion trampoline, next to the conclusion ball pit with the conclusion slide, jumping around with all the conclusions?  Who looks unbelievably, hilariously foolish?  The Forum [DE]fenders performing amazing feats of mental gymnastics trying to twist literally any straw they could grasp to put DE in the right on this one.  "Do you work at DE and know it was intended?  The big fat 'intentional' tag on the ability doesn't mean it was intentional."  "Objectives that you defend are not necessarily 'Defense Objectives.'" Those are real things I've watched you people spout trying to defend this mess.  There was even the guy in this thread trying to argue over the capitalization of the wording in the tip to prove that it wasn't inten- Oh, there's Megan calling it intentional.  This is all the concrete proof that anyone could ever need that people who blindly go along with and defend every choice a developer makes, do in fact exist.

THIS 100%  TRUTH BOMB  ^^^^^^^^^

Edited April 2, 2020 by (PS4)SolarPhantom82

[--Aegis--MR9]

If I understand it correctly, DE took away Venari's ability to heal defense targets because only preventing Oplinks from being healed was too much work? 
That makes any sense? 

I am losing my last bit of confidence on DE if they are able to make these decisions that easily without giving them a second thought, let alone proper testing. We are investing our time behind a game where the Dev thinks they can do whatever that suits them.  

Edited April 2, 2020 by --Aegis--MR9

[(PSN)Sentiel]

Don't touch Sancti Magistar ffs

I just got it for the sole purpose of healing myself, my pets, my team and their pets and everything around while saving mod slots and because for some, unexplainable reason, even Trinity cannot heal things like Excavators but this thing can.

Trinity should be able to heal EVERYTHING, even my crumbling faith in DE.

 

Edited April 2, 2020 by (PS4)Sentiel
Formatting

[(PSN)SolarPhantom82]

3 minutes ago, --Aegis--MR9 said:

If I understand it correctly, DE took away Venari's ability to heal defense targets because only preventing Oplinks from being healed was too much work? 
That makes any sense? 

I am losing my last bit of confidence on DE if they are able to make these decisions that easily without giving them a second thought, let alone proper testing. We are investing our time behind a game where the Dev thinks they can do whatever that suits them.  

Yeah and now their “reviewing” all defensive ability’s... so Limbo nerf incoming ?

[(PSN)Sentiel]

1 minute ago, (PS4)SolarPhantom82 said:

Yeah and now their “reviewing” all defensive ability’s... so Limbo nerf incoming ?

Why not remove Defence modes as well and just keep Exterminate?

Give the main game the Railjack mission variety.