What's with the whiplashing opinions?

[Morthal]

13 hours ago, (PS4)LeBlingKing said:

Back in the day, I kept seeing people complain about how their multiplayer experience was destroyed by Ash's old Bladestorm, which would target anything and everything in a 50 mile radius off of one targeted enemy cast. 

Today, people are complaining about not being able to target anything and everything in a 50 mile radius off of one targeted enemy who has been *ahem* "marked for death" due to the ability "not working as intended" or something like that. I don't know, I don't own the Mouthwall.

I'm not excusing or supporting "nerf mentality" but like... where's the line? Where do we draw the line?

I've seen so many overlapping opinions from so many Warframe media: YouTube, the forums, Reddit, Discord, Instagram, Twitter...

It's like no one knows what they want, anymore. Who should the developers listen to? What should they be doing? If people don't like the direction the game is going, why are they still here? And if people like the direction the game is going, then why do they cherrypick everything? It's like DE can't do a single thing without doing it """wrong.""" 

If people know what to expect from developers like these having been playing their game for 7 ----ing years, then why do they keep getting upset every time the devs pull something that they usually worked? If yelling didn't work, and yelling even louder didn't work, then what the hell are you wasting your breath for? 

I don't even know what the point of this thread was... I'm just so confused.

Pandering. That was the point, most likely. If you've been playing long enough to understand that there's a diverse community in Warframe and that DE seems to make changes based on advanced Alzheimer's, there isn't much to be confused about. I mean, unless it's why are there still people working on the game, who don't even enjoy it anymore. 

[Morthal]

13 hours ago, (PS4)DidacoJack said:

De should stick to whatever formula allows them to have a healthier development of their game

Most of us want to have fun, whether it be solo or in large groups, but the formula which exists currently is based on the business model. No amount of healthy development will change the timers, time gates, paywalls and other arbitrary mechanics designed around monetization. I know more than a few people here in the forums can see how DE's been trying to emulate the Path of Exile meta shift. I love that game and couldn't say which I've spent the most time playing...probably PoE because it's got that nostalgia factor but both have been feeling very mobile game oriented lately. Lots of hype for new content but obviously more time/money being spent on sh*tting out MTX.

[BahamutKaiser]

It's not a binary problem. 

[PookieNumnums]

Way i sees it. Yah got three schools of thought. 

1. Gimme power creep. 

2. Antipower creep. 

3. Power creep is necessary to a degree and we are too far down the rabbit hole to come out reasonably and realisticly so its not worth giving an f about. 

 

Its the interwebs so people are going to have mixed opinions. 

Unfortunately, devs just try to keep anything from getting out of hand because balancing the current meta or secret metas is hard enough without new new new op discoveries and sways in weapon / warframe popularity. 

Meh. 

They should just remove numbers from the hud in game and in arsenal. Make everything turn to speculation and watch the playerbase eat eachother alive. 

[vegetosayajin]

17 hours ago, (PS4)LeBlingKing said:

... where's the line? Where do we draw the line?

"back in the day" and now is two different things
today 90% of the missions require you more kills and more damage for more faster kills
Of course people are gonna be mad that something that helps that is nerfed. 

[S3EK3R]

18 hours ago, Kaotyke said:

"Rage is an hell of a drug" ~ Zaeed Massani

"Rage is hell of an anesthetic" IIRC

[Kaotyke]

8 hours ago, Kaggelos said:

Ah, a fellow Mass Effect fan. Ready for the remastered trilogy?

I dont think my crappy PC is though...

5 minutes ago, S3EK3R said:

"Rage is hell of an anesthetic" IIRC

Well, anesthetic is a drug...

[Teridax68]

18 hours ago, (PS4)LeBlingKing said:

Back in the day, I kept seeing people complain about how their multiplayer experience was destroyed by Ash's old Bladestorm, which would target anything and everything in a 50 mile radius off of one targeted enemy cast. 

Today, people are complaining about not being able to target anything and everything in a 50 mile radius off of one targeted enemy who has been *ahem* "marked for death" due to the ability "not working as intended" or something like that. I don't know, I don't own the Mouthwall.

There are quite a few threads like these blaming "the community" for not knowing what it wants, by saying one thing and its contrary at the same time. The explanation is pretty simple: the community isn't a hive mind with a singular opinion, it's a group of people with lots of different, often completely opposite opinions. You'll find threads arguing diametrically opposite positions on the same forum, but if you were to look at the people posting in them, you'll usually see that those individuals are pretty consistent on most topics. The only reason it feels like there's whiplash is because the focus of discussion shifts over time: back when Ash's old Bladestorm was a thing, it was indeed a problem for many players, who weren't used to having enemies getting killed right under their noses by another player while they were trying to fight them. Nowadays, in a game that now has many more missions dependent on rapid mass murder and has been having the current version of Saryn for years, it feels strange for an ability with much less nuking power, i.e. Marked for Death, to receive a nerf.

I think one of the things that can also be observed about the community is that its feedback is often very... goal-oriented, let's put it that way. Because this is a game about collecting rewards, players will typically complain when the game gets in the way of that, and will ask for change not necessarily for the sake of fun, but for the sake of winning faster. This I suspect is why many people will ardently defend frames like Saryn or Mesa, or otherwise oppose nerfs even in the most necessary of circumstances, and why some may flip opinions depending on the hot topic of the day.

[(XBOX)Knight Raime]

I still do not understand the comparison between MfD and old BS Ash builds.  They're nothing alike except for doing finisher damage in an AoE.

[ZetekP]

One thing about balance I want to point out, as a khora main, is that theres a sort of threshold to effectiveness in an ability. Lets observe whipclaw.

 

Whipclaw is effective at killing enemies, as it is a damage ability, and that is what it is supposed to do. It does damage and can kill enemies effectively. If you nerf the damage a bit, either you lower the damage, in which its still going to be effective since its a range explosion that scales off of melee mods, or you nerf it to the point in which its not effective anymore. In which, simply the ability is going to be shafted(or now changed to a subsumed ability). If you nerf the damage but its still effective at killing enemies, shes still going to, would you look at that, kill enemies. If you nerf it so she isnt effective at killing enemies, now you wont use the ability, and would you look at that, since she cant kill enemies on the strangledome, and it makes enemies harder to kill for your teammates, wow, pilfering strangledome and strangedome in general now just feels bad. And we know we replace venari already, so now you have a frame with 1 good ability, ensnare. And, now, khora seems like a hydroid now, an ability with a loot augment, CC ability that makes it harder to attack the enemies, OR you can keep her effective at what she is supposed to do, allow her to kill the enemies with loot and make strangledome not a pain but a nuke now. 

 

Theres no merit to making a warframe ability not effective, as in this game, if something is not effective, you use the other option. Look at xaku, his 2 and Gaze is good, and then theres that beam, which is a flat damage, which can be high, but you have an auto shooting scaling damage ability. You wouldnt use the hyper beam, you would use the 2. And then if they make the 2 not effective, then whoops, now switch to melee since melee can kill any level of enemy, albiet, since you are meleeing enemies its slower than the auto shooting option, and in the case of khora, its slower than whipclaw, making the process of killing enemies slower, for no reason. 

 

I can talk about saryn, I used to main her as well, she is effective at killing enemies, and for high level enemies, effective at debuffing armor, procing viral, toxin for corpus, condition overload, and if spores stack up over time, can kill enemies with high damage per second. Now if you make her damage bad, use another source of damage, but you just made the damage saryn ineffective. If you nerf the debuffing, now you use a CO proccer, while being less effective.

 

One example was blade storm, and what DE did to it. I wasnt there when it was good, but I read some comments here. An ability that takes all enemies in range and makes it so they are invulnerable to all damage except the skill. Regardless of it being able to kill enemies or not, how effective is it to make enemies that are to kill invincible. Now at all. The solution would be to make it so enemies ARENT invincible. Done. Easy. But DE make it so you had to "mark enemies for death"(haha, thats relevant here as well, isnt it), with your cursor THREE TIMES, so you are just spazzing with your mouse only able to mark enemies that you see, to do a slow animation for attack, while you could just use your weapon. Its not as effective as just going invisible and realizing "oh my talent gives extra slash damage, let me use slash weapons" to kill enemies regardless of level. They made Blade storm not as effective as weapons. Now, people dont use it as much because if they do use it its for fun or playstyle. For fun is cool, but an ability that costs energy should be effective.

My stance is, only nerf things when either, is an exploit, or, nerf things AFTER all the options are good(abilities mainly, as weapons are supposed to be good based off of mastery rank, but thats a different issue of itself), and nerf the things that are good above the good. But there are so many things in this game that are just, BAD, thats why when DE does a knee jerk reaction like marked for death, its why theres backlash. 

 

Marked for death was bugged for double dipping. its supposed to do a portion(I mean I dont know math but 100% is a portion, but w/e) of enemy hp to enemies around, so you use a high level enemy, mark it, and kill weaker enemies. Sure. But now, you cant even do that with a normal build, and also why is it the NEXT ATTACK if its marked for DEATH, it should just work like tesla bank, to make it effective. Fix the bug with double dipping that made you reach damage cap, and allow marked for DEATH to actually cause DEATH. they decided to fix the bug and be like "oh, we dont want enemies to die". And once this happens, people still look at whipclaw and be like "oh this should be nerfed because marked for death is nerfed", when it is obvious that marked for death has been turned from "overpowered"(line of sight, has to get a single enemy and do finisher, build a build around it, I think thats called building a build for a result) to not effective at all(why marked for death when you can actually cause death). 

 

Theres a reason why people dont use abilities like Target fixation on zephyr

you can stack infinite damage with it, but its not effective as grabbing your weapon and just shooting an enemy, instead of spamming 1. 

Slash dash, or use exalted blade. If they make exalted blade in effective, welp one slot on excal that is useless, slash dash isnt effective, so you have radial javelin(which is only effective thanks for augment for melee) and radial blind(LoS blind). 

 

Back to khora, if you make whipclaw not effective in killing enemies, by not making it scale to a threshold for killing enemies, then her 1 is shafted, her 3 is already shafted, and her 4, now is an annoyance, unless you wanna run a negative range synergy with a seperate nidus to group for endo farming or something(recently saw this strat kinda cool). So you have a warframe with one good ability, ensnare now. Arent warframes with 1 good ability the thing the community always says "this frame needs a rework"? Non effective abilities.

Hydroid has, 1 effective ability, and thats IF you use pilfering swarm augment over an effective at killing and CC'ing khora. Why does nerfing a frame to be non effective seem like a solution to the community? I couldn't understand that. Especially in a game where there's no competitive aspect, if PvP was relevant then you nerf, guess this, in pvp, and even then, in pvp the warframe should still be effective, just as effective as everyone else. And that stays true to PvE as well, other frames should be effective. Warframes like mesa(cept 1), saryn(id say cept 2 but others say other wise), khora(cept 3) are 75% effective, besides that one skill. And, they are GOOD now. Cant say they are perfect because one ability is mediocre and not effective, but, there are frames with 1 or no effective ability. The key is to look at those frames and see "hm, how do we make these frames effective in the game". Not to say "lets make effective frames not effective". 

 

I could get an argument with "this frame is more effective than the others, bring them down to other level, where they are still effective", but there are frames that are not effective at all, and you only use because you like them. Do you, nerf resonator because its just radial disarm but 100% better? or do you give radial disarm an effective usage alternative to resonator, or even just make it on par. 

 

Do you make whipclaw as "effective" as slash dash, or do you make slash dash as effective as whipclaw?