Who does it hurt to have a meta?

[(XBOX)Architect Prime]

I'm just confused about the nature of nerfs in this game. If something turns out to be super good for whatever reason, who objectively suffers for it? And why is it so important that every weapon gets used equally? Answer at your own peril. 

[Drachnyn]

DE doesnt want everyone to use the same thing. Personally I think they are approaching it from the wrong angle when there are still some garbage abilities in the mix.

[Tyreaus]

So...

1. If a weapon is super overpowered, new releases get compared to it. For new releases to be well-accepted, they should be better than the top end. If they aren't, over time, people basically lose faith in the next big thing: why bother investing in the new stuff if the old stuff is better?

2. Power doesn't exist in a vacuum. If you're able to press a button and nuke the entire map, the people you're playing with have their experience of the game poorly affected. (Especially for low-end missions where new players may be)

3. Overpowered weapons worsen the engagement problem. If you can take out enemies with extreme ease, there's little room for engagement or difficulty. The game becomes less of a game and more of a skinner box. This is already a problem with current arsenals, but due to #1, keeping overpowered weapons around only makes that worse.

A meta is, of course, going to develop. But having a meta isn't a binary thing. You can have a meta setup that deals with enemies a fraction of a second quicker or a meta that deals with enemies instantly where other weapons take multiple seconds to down, or you can have a meta for one mission type and a different meta for a different mission type. There are different scales and different contexts. A meta isn't bad by default. The scale and scope of it makes it so.

"Everybody using the same thing" isn't a problem by itself, but it does indicate a potential problem. If almost everybody is using a certain weapon, that indicates it may be really powerful, and if it is that powerful, then you start running into the above 3 issues if it isn't handled.

You'll notice evidence of this sort of thing in Riven dispositions. There are "meta", most-used weapons in many categories, yet they haven't received nerfs. The reason they've been untouched is because, while they're often used and probably "meta", they're not so powerful as to be a problem.

(And on the topic of Rivens: devs would like all weapons to be used because work went into them, both on the developer and the player side. Many weapons have unique features for those who like the unique features, it'd be nice for them to be able to bring that up to later-game content without suffering due to stats - and without having to wreck progression. Rivens do largely fail in this, but the intent is there.)

TL;DR: Nothing wrong with a meta, but if the meta gets too big, things have to be trimmed, else problems appear or worsen.

[Zyga21]

18 minutes ago, (XB1)Architect Prime said:

I'm just confused about the nature of nerfs in this game. If something turns out to be super good for whatever reason, who objectively suffers for it? And why is it so important that every weapon gets used equally? Answer at your own peril. 

They pretty much only nerf something powerful when it's the only realistic option.

having one possible option is not fun, for anyone.

[Loza03]

Depends on your philosophy, but I think most importantly for Warframe, it's variety in playstyles.

At Tennocon, DE brought up some older comments where they talked about how they wanted Warframe to be a game about 'your story' - about crafting stories and sharing them with others. That kind of personalised experience means you need everything to be roughly on the same playing field - if one playstyle is more powerful by a wide margin and your playstyle (your 'story') isn't that playstyle, then you're out of luck, at the end of the day.

 

For the record, I agree with @Tyreaus as well, but in terms of what the game is at a fundamental level, the feelings that it evokes have a pretty huge effect in what mechanics are used and what decisions are made.

[Xylena_Lazarow]

If the meta setup is too powerful, the rest of the content feels pointless, players lose interest, and DE loses money.

[Tsukinoki]

57 minutes ago, (XB1)Architect Prime said:

I'm just confused about the nature of nerfs in this game. If something turns out to be super good for whatever reason, who objectively suffers for it? And why is it so important that every weapon gets used equally? Answer at your own peril. 

There isn't a problem with having a Meta.
The problem is if the meta is stagnant and there is one dominate strategy that renders everything else pointless.

Its perfectly fine to have a meta as long as its varied and you have equal options and ways to do things.

Take tcgs for instance.  They have metas but withing those metas there doesn't exist a "best" option to use, there are multiple strategies and ways to win the metas.  For example you can have mill decks and small rushes and big hitters and board denial, and so on and so forth.  The thing though is that the options are more-or-less balanced against each other so that everything else being equal someone using a mill deck can beat one of the other strategies, and yet at the same time the other strategies can still fight back and win just as much.  No one way to play should be the "right" way to play.
They have a varied meta that means that there are multiple ways to play and win that are equally valid.

The problem with Warframe is that there is one option that so utterly dominates everything else, what becomes the point in even attempting to look at the other options?
Take the catchmoon back before its nerf.  Why would anyone ever use another secondary when the catchmoon was better than everything else in the game?
This caused a problem because now everything is compared to the catchmoon.  If its worse than the catchmoon it won't be used, ever.  And if its better than everyone moves on to the new "best" option.
Imagine what this does when massive new things are released into the game but no one ever even looks at them because "the catchmoon is better than everything else...why should we bother crafting any of the new stuff since we know its going to perform worse?"

It also has a problem of hurting teamplay and team members enjoyment in missions.  After all what reason do you have to exist in a mission when the one player with <insert current nuke frame/weapon> is hogging every kill and you aren't able to do anything but sit there and watch the mission get done for you?

Having a completely stagnant meta where there is one good choice isn't good for the game.  It hurts engagement (after all why engage with new systems when you know you already have the best of the best?) and it hurts players in missions.  It even hurts DEs bottom line....
I mean look again at how TCGs handle when it turns out that say in a tournament 90% of the decks were running the same set of cards because they were objectively the best options to run.  They ban, limit, and errata those cards to fix them so that there is more than one option that is valid and actually stands a chance of winning.

Sure have a some good options for players to use that are varied in playstyle.  Don't just have one option that is hands down better than everything else to the point that everything else is utterly worthless trash compared to it.

[(PSN)Ozymandias-13-]

There's no issue with "a" meta. The issue is meta in a game with no logic or balance. 

When the meta can be a literal 1,000% more effective than than the alternatives then there is no reasonable alternatives. In many games variance between effectiveness in two things may be 10%. Not 100x that variance.

This game has too many damage types, where most of them are useless. And it's had frames that are top tier at both offense and defense at the same time. DE pushes the limits of any given stat, then when everyone flocks to that item they design new content around meeting that new stat standard or simply nullifying its effectiveness entirely making it irrelevant.

Who does it hurt to have a meta?

In this game? Literally everyone. Because DE hasn't figured out how to balance and keeps making numbers climb higher with flashy streamers on them instead of making those numbers actually meaningful, as well as all decisions surrounding those numbers.

[(PSN)MYKK678]

1 hour ago, (XB1)Architect Prime said:

I'm just confused about the nature of nerfs in this game. If something turns out to be super good for whatever reason, who objectively suffers for it? And why is it so important that every weapon gets used equally? Answer at your own peril. 

It hurts everyone.

A game with as much Variety as Warframe with 40+ Frames and 300+ weapons would be decimated by allowing a "Meta". Game communities are full of individuals with individual likes and individual dislikes. I can guarantee that you and i differ in playstyle just as i could guarantee it with anyone else. Nobody has a "correct" playstyle, we all just have "Preferred" playstyles. Allowing a "Meta" is a game company basically saying "sorry but f*** your playstyle, this, and only this, is how the game should be played". That, inherently, then makes the Variety options redundant and meaningless.

Hope that helps 

[(XBOX)KayAitch]

1 hour ago, (XB1)Architect Prime said:

If something turns out to be super good for whatever reason, who objectively suffers for it?

It's boring.

That's it.

Every mission Catchmoon. Nothing but Catchmoon. It's fun at first, but then why play with anything else? I have the best weapon already. Catchmoon becomes boring.

DE nerfs Catchmoon, removed self-damage making the previously extremely suicidal Bramma way OP.

Every mission Bramma. Nothing but Bramma. Have a Bramma? Congrats, you're done. Boring again.

DE don't want either:

- everyone already has the best gun, all content is trivial and there is nothing to play for, or...

- a tiny few have the best gun or the riven that makes it work, and unless you have crazy plat (like enough to buy a car if it were cash) forget getting it, you're never going to get it.

Either scenario burns players out, they stop playing. Players keeping playing is all DE wants, and they don't really care if you're hurt about your Bramma getting nerfed to do it (so long as you keep playing).

1 hour ago, (XB1)Architect Prime said:

And why is it so important that every weapon gets used equally?

It isn't. If the meta was equally spread across just 30 weapons DE would be very happy. Every weapon equally used is an impossible ideal they'd probably have to quash every innovative weapon to maintain (see Destiny and it's huge selection of tediously identical guns).

DE aren't too worried about underused weapons, they'll add NW mods that give them a little boost, and maybe you'll get a great riven, but underused is ok.

Everyone carrying the same primary (Kuva Bramma) and same secondary (Kuva Nukor) is a problem, just because it's boring. This is a game that depends on play variety - yeah, you could play this mission with that cool new gun you're having fun with, but it will suck next to this meta.

And it's worth noting, Warframe is not hard in the first place. For the vast majority of nerfs the post-nerf gun is still top tier.

[(XBOX)Architect Prime]

I appreciate your responses. I have seen some perspectives nicely articulated here. 

[Hobie-wan]

Do you have a favorite food? If that's all you and everyone ate all the time, you'd get sick of it and sick of seeing it everywhere. What about everyone wearing the same clothes as every one else every day? Listening to the same band or music every single day?

Sure sometimes you can fall into "this just works", but variety is the spice of life.

[DeadlySurgeon]

The thing that does bother me is that a meta IS largely in place. Viral/Heat or Viral/Slash are still sitting pretty in their thrones as God Kings of all Procs, Melee has no equal, all hard CC Warframes are outdone by the ultimate form of CC, death... A meta exists, and there have been no steps taken to dislodge it.

Nerfing outliers instead of buffing what underperforms in a system that was meant to push what you can do with your Warframe just feels... petty.

To clarify: I'm 100%, absolutely, almost terminally in favor of nerfs if they're done to advance the game in a healthier direction. These nerfs are not that.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

There are many metas already, and many more will still be made. Try to have an imagination.