Jump to content
Whispers in the Walls: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

The balancing dissonance between DE and the community - explained


Sdric

Recommended Posts

Right now DE is likely shaking their heads:
Players continuously ask for more difficult content - why on Earth do the same people oppose Marked for Death nerfs?
 
It's a very logical question, but it also has a perfectly logical answer, which is important for both parties to understand:
  1. Players are used to the power-level of Mesa, Saryn, Khora, Gara, Octavia and Equinox - which all were (and are) significantly more powerful than Ash + Marked of Death was (outside of Simulacron) in one way or another. Mostly due to range / damage-per-energy - or - simply due to consistency, due to the fact that marked targets were frequently killed by allies, ruining the whole combo while paying full cost for literally nothing. Nerfing Marked for Death felt really hypocritical. It was unarguably strong, but it was far, far away from being the strongest tool available. Asymmetrical balancing standards were applied, which irritated players - and felt like DE was enforcing a stale meta. In order to achieve a more fun and more varied meta balancing standards have to be universal. We either have a set of top tier picks which remain unnerved, but we allow the existence of gear, warframe and abilities at a lower power-level to remain unnerfed, as well - OR - the power-ceiling set by those top picks has to be toned down: Meaning simultaneous nerfs to those very top picks. What is a complete "no-go", is nerfing something that is below that power-level, while leaving those at the ceiling untouched - namely: Our Marked for Death controversy.
     
  2. Players want more difficult content on top of current content, not instead of it. With nerfs to existing frames / weapons new players have it more difficult to catch up. Facing the same content with much worse tools than others had before you can be really frustrating. While power-creep is to some extend inevitable over time, it serves as tool to make it easier for new players to catch up. Which can be a good thing. So: More difficult content on top of new content, not instead of it.
 
Personal opinion:
I do believe that a lot of bottom-tier abilities require buffs. Helminth gives us a good indication who they are. When it comes to top-tier balancing I however don't care whether those top picks are toned down or new stars are allowed to rise: The most important factor is consistency. I do see an advantage in keeping those top-picks as they are (see 2.), but it's also an undeniable truth that it'd be easier to nerf 6 frames rather than buffing over 30 others. Overall I hope that DE takes a second to step back and re-think what balancing philosophy they want to implement and then apply it consistently. Consistency makes it much easier for players to both understand and accept either nerfs or buffs. In the long run it also creates a stable foundation for future balancing of content. Consistency is a must.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think there is another disconnect: they called the MfD nerfs fixes and claimed the way it worked was never intentional. However that is directly contradicted by the ability description and the tooltip video. Nerfing MfD isnt even consistent for DE's standards of inconsistent nerfing as it really wasnt used all that much (only the 8th most infused ability). However from the devstream we know that parts of the balance team concerned with MfD were on vacation when it happened.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

New players don't have a hard time catching up because of nerfs....is this a joke? The new players use the regular star chart and it is easy. New players have a hard time because they don't have access to forma and endo and primed mods and they are learning the game. New players even have access to the Kuva Bramma so what're you talking about...?

Many good weapons are low MR but they need help learning how to mod and they also need forma and good mods which takes endo and credits. 

Please stop making these terrible arguments to find ways to justify needing an OP marked for death.....it doesn't make any logical sense. Most if not all frames perform well, there is a just a meta that is a path of least resistance. Those frames are easy because starchart enemies are easy. You can use Gauss to nuke a low level Hydron just like you can with Equinox, it's not a standard and it doesn't make the rest of the 38 frames weak because they can't nuke. Stop using nukes as a baseline for starchart enemies....it's a niche playstyle that people are using to justify turning every single frame into a nuke. Ash is not weak at all some of his abilities ignore armor. He can go hours in the void killing enemies like butter.

And another thing....new players don't even have access to the helminth.....so what do new players even have to do with marked for death?? They don't need marked for death or "nerfed weapons and frames" to catch up to anything.....Before marked for death and the Helminth arrived you wouldn't have even been able to make this irrational argument.....enemy EHP was nerfed.....Most frames are viable for all content with knowledge, forma and correct modding and a good team setup and even solo or duo. You have to actually use the tools available to you.

2. Nothing of difficulty replaced any content. Difficult content exists right next to normal, easy content. Everything besides arbitrations, steel path and eidolons and orb mothers is easy barring a few outliers, and I'm just calling those easy for sake of argument because they are higher tiered content....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 32 Minuten schrieb (PS4)Madurai-Prime:

New players don't have a hard time catching up because of nerfs....is this a joke? The new players use the regular star chart and it is easy. New players have a hard time because they don't have access to forma and endo and primed mods and they are learning the game. New players even have access to the Kuva Bramma so what're you talking about...?

Many good weapons are low MR but they need help learning how to mod and they also need forma and good mods which takes endo and credits. 

Please stop making these terrible arguments to find ways to justify needing an OP marked for death.....it doesn't make any logical sense. Most if not all frames perform well, there is a just a meta that is a path of least resistance. Those frames are easy because starchart enemies are easy. You can use Gauss to nuke a low level Hydron just like you can with Equinox, it's not a standard and it doesn't make the rest of the 38 frames weak because they can't nuke. Stop using nukes as a baseline for starchart enemies....it's a niche playstyle that people are using to justify turning every single frame into a nuke. Ash is not weak at all some of his abilities ignore armor. He can go hours in the void killing enemies like butter.

And another thing....new players don't even have access to the helminth.....so what do new players even have to do with marked for death?? They don't need marked for death or "nerfed weapons and frames" to catch up to anything.....Before marked for death and the Helminth arrived you wouldn't have even been able to make this irrational argument.....enemy EHP was nerfed.....Most frames are viable for all content with knowledge, forma and correct modding and a good team setup and even solo or duo. You have to actually use the tools available to you.

2. Nothing of difficulty replaced any content. Difficult content exists right next to normal, easy content. Everything besides arbitrations, steel path and eidolons and orb mothers is easy barring a few outliers, and I'm just calling those easy for sake of argument because they are higher tiered content....

You cherry-picked and completely missinterpreted a very small subset of what I wrote and over-committed at it. I said that a.) >>>>if<<<< frames and weapons become weaker than they used to be due to nerfs, it becomes more difficult to catch up b.) I said that power-creep >>>>does exist<<<< and that it helps new players to catch up. Those two statement are in line with what you said (in quite an aggressive tone for some reason). So it's irritating that you're going full aggro here. 

You also completely miss the point of my post, which (after highlighting it several times) is the importance of consistency. I even explicitly  stated that Marked for Death was strong, so you trying to twist my words here is the very opposite of constructive or sound argumentation. So it's irritating how you claim that I'm not making any logical sense. Maybe take a step back, calm your temper and re-read what I wrote. Me not making sense to you, might be because you're completely missunderstanding what I wrote - very likely because you approached my post with a hostile and very stubborn and pre-set mindset - which lead to you both missinterpreating what I said and implying things I never wrote.

As for your perspective:

Zitat

Ash is not weak at all some of his abilities ignore armor. He can go hours in the void killing enemies like butter.

I can also tie my shoe with a single hand. It's probably smarter to use both hands though. There is a major difference between effectiveness and efficiency. The former means being able to do something, the latter quantifies the former by creating a relation to the resources required to do that thing. To stick with your example of hourlong void runs: Ash is effective in niche content (which is neither common, nor very practical, nor rewarding) due to perma-stealth, but that doesn't mean that he's efficient in that content. On top of that drawing conclusions for the whole game from such a niche utterly falsifies the true state of balancing. It's sheer ignorance of the vast majority of scenarios that any player will encounter.

As for the last part of your post. Again, please reread my post without the hostile prejudice you so openly display and focus on what I actually wrote. You're fighting an un-constructive off topic war here from which I'd like to refrain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Sdric said:

You cherry-picked and completely missinterpreted a very small subset of what I wrote and over-committed at it. I said that a.) >>>>if<<<< frames and weapons become weaker than they used to be due to nerfs, it becomes more difficult to catch up b.) I said that power-creep >>>>does exist<<<< and that it helps new players to catch up. Those two statement are in line with what you said (in quite an aggressive tone for some reason). So it's irritating that you're going full aggro here. 

You also completely miss the point of my post, which (after highlighting it several times) is the importance of consistency. I even explicitly  stated that Marked for Death was strong, so you trying to twist my words here is the very opposite of constructive or sound argumentation. So it's irritating how you claim that I'm not making any logical sense. Maybe take a step back, calm your temper and re-read what I wrote. Me not making sense to you, might be because you're completely missunderstanding what I wrote - very likely because you approached my post with a hostile and very stubborn and pre-set mindset - which lead to you both missinterpreating what I said and implying things I never wrote.

As for your perspective:

I can also tie my shoe with a single hand. It's probably smarter to use both hands though. There is a major difference between effectiveness and efficiency. The former means being able to do something, the latter quantifies the former by creating a relation to the resources required to do that thing. To stick with your example of hourlong void runs: Ash is effective in niche content (which is neither common, nor very practical, nor rewarding) due to perma-stealth, but that doesn't mean that he's efficient in that content. On top of that drawing conclusions for the whole game from such a niche utterly falsifies the true state of balancing. It's sheer ignorance of the vast majority of scenarios that any player will encounter.

As for the last part of your post. Again, please reread my post without the hostile prejudice you so openly display and focus on what I actually wrote. You're fighting an un-constructive off topic war here from which I'd like to refrain.

The efficiency excuse is made up by people that farm and/or kill efficiently. It's an excuse to say "Why use x when y exists? It's not efficient" i.e "Why use a Pox when the Kuva nukor exists. I.e "Why would I even play the game unless I have 4 boosters on and only play missions with a speed nova, 2 farm frames and a nuke and camp at a chokepoint". Its made up by people that feel the only way to play is "efficiently". It is not. It's one playstyle and is not a metric or the only way to play.

Please show me where the people involved in making this game said "Our intended purpose for every frame and weapon is to play as fast and as efficiently as possible."

People opposing ability or weapon nerfs has no correlation with wanting or not wanting content difficulty. They aren't two phenomena that go hand in hand together....M4D was bugged with unintended factors affecting it. The people that made the game said they did not want it to perform in that manner and that a mistake was made. They said they're gonna re-look at it, and you're gonna have to be aware that it's not gonna perform the same because it was bugged the entire time and people got used to that and assumed that was the way it was supposed to be. 

Universal consistency and balance is not possible and I have no idea why you would think it is. Different abilities and weapons exist for variation of choice and playstyles. They are not all made because you want to compete for kills in a public match. You, yourself used the example of people in your group killing your targets before Marked for Death could. That is you using a public match to try to balance an ability around the capability of nuking before someone else. You want to be able to kill something before everyone else in the group and that's not what everything in the game is for. That is your own idea that people should compete for damage in a PuG. 

Do you think all frames should have stealth? Is that inconsistent? 

Why would you expect a Bramma and Tiberon prime to perform the same? Or a grenade launcher versus a sniper rifle? Is that inconsistent for those two weapons to exist? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we'd all be better off if we could somehow get an actual power/level curve instead of this anomalous "You can kill level 80 enemies in 4 bullets but level 180 ones take 30+" issues.

Nothing scales in a reasonable fashion in Warframe, it is all just multiplier spam, player and enemy alike. It creates this issue of walls that don't announce themselves until you've already hit them, and gives no clear reason for why you've hit it.

Add in how everything in modern Warframe is about ignoring as many gameplay mechanics as possible; enemies nullify powers and have big DR, players have full armor strip and ignore damage, we've just hit the point where the only "right" way to play the game is to ignore all the rules because the game itself doesn't play by them either.

I rest the responsibility for that solely on the obscene power creep we've had over the years, how nobody saw it coming when people were spending 8+ hours in survival missions nigh-afk I'll never know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Aldain said:

I think we'd all be better off if we could somehow get an actual power/level curve instead of this anomalous "You can kill level 80 enemies in 4 bullets but level 180 ones take 30+" issues.

Nothing scales in a reasonable fashion in Warframe, it is all just multiplier spam, player and enemy alike. It creates this issue of walls that don't announce themselves until you've already hit them, and gives no clear reason for why you've hit it.

Add in how everything in modern Warframe is about ignoring as many gameplay mechanics as possible; enemies nullify powers and have big DR, players have full armor strip and ignore damage, we've just hit the point where the only "right" way to play the game is to ignore all the rules because the game itself doesn't play by them either.

I rest the responsibility for that solely on the obscene power creep we've had over the years, how nobody saw it coming when people were spending 8+ hours in survival missions nigh-afk I'll never know.

You strip armor and you don't even have to strip all of it at level 180. The knowledge you've acquired tells you that corrosive and fire reduce armor, and some abilities weaken enemy defenses like Novas 4 or Nezhas 2. The abilities have descriptions. The codex tells you which elements do what, so no one even has to read a wiki. They even tell you what enemy is weak to which element.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Sdric said:

Players are used to the power-level of Mesa, Saryn, Khora, Gara, Octavia and Equinox - which all were (and are) significantly more powerful than Ash + Marked of Death was (outside of Simulacron) in one way or another.

That is not the case at all and not the reason why M4D required a nerf. Since M4D was/is used in combintaion with finisher damage it has way higher scaling than (some of) above mentioned Frames and remained valuable long after Mesas or Saryns would run out of steam. "If M4D is so strong, why is nobody using it on Earth fissures?" was a common reply. For the same reason you would not see Gara with Spliter Storm there - it is not its playground. 
With Bronco Augment in combination with A. Trickery this extremely safe playstyle was available to everyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...