Jump to content
Dante Unbound: Share Bug Reports and Feedback Here! ×

Incoming Kuva Nukor nerf


Ace-Bounty-Hunter

Recommended Posts

23 minutes ago, SenorClipClop said:

Are you suggesting that anything outside the meta is a bad gear choice?

I mean I'd honestly love to see somebody say the Veldt is a good gear choice, despite how much I love the gun it really is never a good option.

The problem overall is that content design is starting to become biased towards the "meta" in question and having loot RNG assuming players will blitz through it with no effort at all.

So I wouldn't say "anything outside of the meta is a bad gear choice" but rather that there isn't much of a reason to use a lot of things because they just can't compete in a meaningful way. Fun notwithstanding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Krankbert said:

The more commonly used term is "more difficult".

If by "more difficult" you mean "as low effort as humanly possible" then I agree.

Because that is the only way to define any "meta" that fits a Stasis Limbo or melee weapons that deal millions of damage with minimal effort or setup.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gerade eben schrieb Aldain:

If by "more difficult" you mean "as low effort as humanly possible" then I agree.

Because that is the only way to define any "meta" that fits a Stasis Limbo or melee weapons that deal millions of damage with minimal effort or setup.

I couldn't have been more clearly refering to the expression "more biased towards the meta".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jarriaga said:

As in, if the weapon was used to shoot something even if it was killed by something else? How would that solve the problem of status primer usage being skewed? Wouldn't that push usage even further if you primed 1000 enemies in a single mission instead of just adding +1 to usage stats by virtue of completing the mission per se?

How do we know DE don't already do that? And how would your proposal add or remove weight to say, 1000 status-primed enemies in a single mission? If I primed 5 enemies over 2 seconds 100 times in a single mission, how does that change the usage formula? Is the usage time dividing, adding, or substracting? How would that formula work for low fire-rate weapons or weapons that have reload or charge downtime? Wouldn't that number be higher than a simple +1 for completing the mission with it equipped? It would ironically be a more conservative number.

So you have it there as a "just in case" as I mentioned as a possible cause. That doesn't change the fact that you have chosen to leave the Chakkhur there over, say, the Tetra.

They do take context into account. Reb directly confirmed this to Brozime when he reached out to her about why Wukong Prime is the most used frame despite him rarely ever seen Wukong Prime.

Turns out she told him that he's extremely popular in Capture and Sortie missions, the type of missions Brozime doesn't play. This means that DE are able to take individual game mode usage into context when aggregating data. Just because the Arca Plasmor is a horrible choice for an Eidolon fight doesn't mean that the Rubico should be given a pass "because it's the only viable choice in that context". It means that they know Snipers are king in that context already and are likely not measuring the Rubico to the Arca Plasmor, but rather the Rubico to the Snipetron.

It seems we are looking at the exact same data and reaching different conclusions. Your argument as that they shouldn't nerf it because they have a unique/niche use in which the rest is not really an option at all. My argument is that if they only have a niche use, they should still be measured in the context of what works in that niche use. Why? Because otherwise Snipers as a whole would get a weapon class pass by virtue of not being appropriate for the rest of the game. So what do you do to keep things fair? You isolate and measure against them where they are actually used. Thus Rubico vs Snipetron rather than Rubico vs. Plasmor. 

Yet concrete correction and improvement proposals that can take into account individual usage playstyles and edge cases either never presented, or vaguely presented as in your initial remarks about measuring based on weapon participation without clarifying how the stats should result from damaging 1000 enemies in 1 mission vs. damaging 1000 enemies over 1000 missions (1 per mission) with said weapon.

It would be a different tracker, so obviously 1000 and the number 1 cannot be used in the same way. It would require actual analyzis of the results. It would also show that all 3 weapons equipped arent used equally. Since you'd no longer get a 1/1/1 usage stat, or if based on minutes too currently, it wouldnt just be 30/30/30 in a 30 minute long mission. You'd end up with stats like 0/1000/1500 for primary/secondary/melee. And the reason to add an active usage time value would be to remove the possible "token" value you get from a mission now. So the weapons that are never shot/swung would have no kill contribution or time of use even when equipped. 

We can be fairly sure that DE doesnt track usage time properly, since not until the end of 2017 did they even bother to fix the out of mission usage stat. I think my Frost Prime still sits at a silly high usage stat due to that and I was only effected by it for about 2 months before it was fixed. I doubt they implemented a proper system after that. We also shouldnt be the ones needed to work out the kinks with a possible system, since we dont have access to knowlege about what system they have access to that can help analyze the equations that comes from different usage stat formulas. My point is just that more tracking is better than token tracking, since more variables give a better opportunity for proper balance with an actual foundation that isnt just based on "popularity".

I still doubt they take context into account. Being able to see something used alot in a certain mission doesnt mean they actually take into account why the usage looks like it does. Yes they know from data that Wukong is used for capture and sorties, but that doesnt tell them why. Just the same with snipers, they dont bother with the actual context of why, just that the stats are so and so. Nerfing Rubico wont increase the use of Snipetron, since it is a weak weapon, it will only see more use if Rubico is nerfed to be worse than Snipetron. And at some point in between another sniper will be better than the nerfed Rubico, not because this in between sniper is actually good, just because it is better than the Rubico at that point, which will then lead to it getting nerfed if things are based on popularity. Which really is the only explaination for why we see nerfs to those weapons instead of buffs, since context is of no interest to the process. If there was context as a background, we'd see buffs to the other sniper rifles instead.

As for the last part. I'm not sure how you get the idea there would be an issue if a weapon is used on 1 mob/mission by some and 1000 mobs/mission by others. We have a playerbase of several million players, that would be enough of a sample size to get the correct avarage value no matter the usage/style of each individual player. Which would apply to all weapons more or less. We are looking for statistics in the end to base decisions on. And we are looking at a sample size several time larger than what science would deem fit as a minimum viable size.

In the end, my point is more that they shouldnt base changes on popularity stats, since they are flawed to say the least, especially as they are now, where the whole loadout gets a +1 more or less for being used in a mission from start to end, even if only 1 out of 3 weapons are used for the whole run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Padre_Akais said:

OK...

The Veldt is a good gear choice. Provided you don't require apex dps.

The issue isn't even the DPS, it is the whole "semi-auto" thing that makes it inefficient at the job of killing when compared to so much in the game.

Unless I'm playing solo I can barely hit anything before somebody has melted everything in a 20m radius, and that just makes me sad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SenorClipClop said:

The issue I have with this stance is that, at least in Warframe, non-meta weapons are still effective, still carry you through 99% of the content players ever bother with. Anything beyond the effective -- so, the meta -- isn't needed for the player to succeed, it just makes the game easier and lower-effort. So when people start avidly defending the meta (the Tonkors, Syn Simulors, pre-balance Brammas and Saryns), all I infer from it is that this player wants the game to be as easy and lazy as the OP, AoE weapon makes it -- a stand-point-click-dead idle game. That's the gameplay these options reduce to, what are people defending if not that?

People are defending grind speed.  You can clear the entire star chart with the most basic weapons with just a catalyst.  You can clear later game content like sorties with a few forma on the same weapons.  You can't compete in endurance runs or SP without some pretty meta set ups, you just can't.  But they shouldn't be balancing entirely around that, though it should be a consideration considering SP gives MR which means it needs to be completeable.  That's just the ability to get through it though, with no regards to time spent.  When you look at time spent vs average reward/drop given, it makes most players want to speed up.  You're arguing about general basic mission completion.  We're talking about completion speed because that's how farming drop chances like these is done.

That's because if you're grinding anything that requires killing (which only has a few exceptions, like spy rewards, that sort of thing.) you will take forever to grind that content with those basic weapons unless RNG really likes you.  Need resources?  You need kill speed.  Cracking relics?  Would you rather hunt down every single enemy with a relatively weak automatic rifle for reactant or would you rather blast rockets around and use AOE abilities?  Kill speed.  Trying to get a specific mod that only drops from a specific enemy?  Would you rather kill that specific enemy at high speed with a "totally OP" high damage weapon and fail that roll of the dice faster to get to the next roll of the dice faster to finally get that 0.02% drop, or would you rather slowly take those enemies down while all the other enemies are still engaging you just so you're not a "meta slave"?

People are defending offense as a defense.  Shield gating and rolling and blah blah blah all exist.  But when you're in a fairly fragile frame (especially early game when you have less energy for abilities, no operator, no arcanes, etc.) and there's 6 Juno Elite Crewmen with full auto, high fire rate, no falloff AOE, no self-stagger AOE, endless ammo Supras and the laser beam accuracy doesn't even matter because again, AOE with no falloff, would you rather kill them super fast or "but you can clear them with a MK1 Braton!!!"

And sure, you could use cover (cover against AOE is a laughable concept though.) and play super defensively against the inexhaustible flow of enemies that spawn on your flanks, but again, that's moving slower which means grinding those low drop rates slower, which is something most players don't want.  

The weapon meta is tied directly to nearly every other mechanical aspect of core gameplay.  Fix the drop tables, spawn mechanics and enemy balance and I'll gladly take a bunch of super hard nerfs.  Almost all we get is the nerfs though, and that's not okay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, (XBOX)ECCHO SIERRA said:

I think he was referring to the mentality that some people seem to have, that "well, i have a moral or "skill based" highground because i dont use the meta. Meta is bad. Im a hipster. Im unique. Im cool" etc. 

Maybe, but if so then they're ingoring the point I'm making and substituting a new one that they can argue against. In no way have I said that going off meta gives one a moral highground -- I don't believe it does. I've just said that the meta isn't required to succeed in the game, and questioned their assertion that anything outside of the meta is bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan said:

People are defending grind speed.  You can clear the entire star chart with the most basic weapons with just a catalyst.  You can clear later game content like sorties with a few forma on the same weapons.  You can't compete in endurance runs or SP without some pretty meta set ups, you just can't.  But they shouldn't be balancing entirely around that, though it should be a consideration considering SP gives MR which means it needs to be completeable.

I get that, but:

1. As Soren Johnson has said, "if given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game". I get that grind steers players into low-effort spam setups, but defending the spam (and by extension the idle gameplay that spam reduces the game to) is defending an issue because of another issue. Arguing to keep the thing that mitigates the steep grind is failing to see the forest through the trees.

2. In my experience (so feel free to contrast this with your own) the overwhelming majority of idle-game-style spam's appearance is limited to lower-level missions (sub Lvl50s like Relics, Invasions, Bounties etc). In higher-level stuff like endurance runs and Steel Path, which you mention, AoE weapons fall off (or at least plateau) in favor of hard CC and high-damage localized weaons (melee, snipers, shotguns).

3. None of this changes the fact that in a game that boasts varied options as a feature, having one far-and-away stand-out "best" option like the Kuva Nukor or the old Catchmoon renders the variability a moot point. If there are a handful of top-tier options that afford different benefits based on loadout, situation and gameplay preference, players will customize. If pressing one button solves every problem better than every other other button in every scenario, what point is there for the game to have more than one button? But one-button games tend to get old fast.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, SenorClipClop said:

Maybe, but if so then they're ingoring the point I'm making and substituting a new one that they can argue against. In no way have I said that going off meta gives one a moral highground -- I don't believe it does. I've just said that the meta isn't required to succeed in the game, and questioned their assertion that anything outside of the meta is bad.

Well, if we define "the meta" as optimal loadouts there are clearly optimal choices to make. Anything outside of those choices, is objectively worse, if we define the goal as "get x done as efficiently as possible". 

 

Yes, "non meta" choices can still get you to a mission success screen, but that doesnt mean there arent better options.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, SenorClipClop said:

I get that, but:

1. As Soren Johnson has said, "if given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of the game". I get that grind steers players into low-effort spam setups, but defending the spam (and by extension the idle gameplay that spam reduces the game to) is defending an issue because of another issue. Arguing to keep the thing that mitigates the steep grind is failing to see the forest through the trees.

2. In my experience (so feel free to contrast this with your own) the overwhelming majority of idle-game-style spam's appearance is limited to lower-level missions (sub Lvl50s like Relics, Invasions, Bounties etc). In higher-level stuff like endurance runs and Steel Path, which you mention, AoE weapons fall off (or at least plateau) in favor of hard CC and high-damage localized weaons (melee, snipers, shotguns).

3. None of this changes the fact that in a game that boasts varied options as a feature, having one far-and-away stand-out "best" option like the Kuva Nukor or the old Catchmoon renders the variability a moot point. If there are a handful of top-tier options that afford different benefits based on loadout, situation and gameplay preference, players will customize. If pressing one button solves every problem better than every other other button in every scenario, what point is there for the game to have more than one button? But one-button games tend to get old fast.

First point:  It's not a failure to see the actual issue, I literally pointed the actual issue out.  It's dealing with the reality of the situation, which is that DE hasn't genuinely improved drop tables in several years and every new thing that comes out has worse grind than the last until players riot long enough to get them to sort it out.  Until DE values player enjoyment over projected grind times and engagement numbers the drop tables are going to stay the same and the content is going to continue to release in a hollow state.  Until they fix that, they don't need to nerf anything else.  Fix the issue, the symptom becomes highlighted and far fewer players will care about the nerfs.

Second:  In my own experience AOE weapons and good loadout cohesion allow AOE metas to function past level 800 enemies.  I tend to bring support frames if I know I'm going to be staying awhile.  I've hit the top end of the leader boards in arbitrations with Oberon.  I tend not to discuss my favorite and most effective loadouts in public forums because it will only add to the visibility of strong builds that are liable to get nerfed.  Properly modded AOE guns work for a very long time.  There are guns that most people sleep on that will absolutely wipe SP mobs.  I would almost agree with you on shotguns since I have a preferance for Corinth Prime, but I use the alt fire almost as much as the primary.

Last:  The issue with nerfing by popularity and "outliers" is highlighted by the Nukor.  It's relative ease of acquisition compared to other types of weapons and its utility due to its status chance and beam chaining mean that it will be used by tons of lower to mid level players for wiping trash mobs and tons of high level players for priming hard targets for CO.  Popularity is also effected by completely arbitrary and idiotic things like Youtubers recommending it.  You can build a Gaze kitgun to put in just as much work as a Nukor, and I usually bring my gaze over my Nukor when I do a solo Prodman run because it does the same thing with infinite ammo and holster reloading without using the exilus slot.  There are things that nuke harder than Catchmoon ever did in the secondary category and use on them is low right now.  Let one popular content creator showcase one of them and everyone will jump on board.  Because DE nerfs based on usage and popularity, these things will go untouched until someone does the thinking for the majority of the playerbase and puts a build out.  It's absurd to nerf a weapon because it's a popularity outlier when other weapons are just as strong but not as well-known and tons of weapons sit completely non-viable.  Anyone with a brain, game knowledge and some spare forma could see first hand just how many weapons are just as strong as things like the catchmoon, but they nerfed it because everyone liked it.  If they were nerfing things based on actual strength, they would have taken down several weapons at the same time.  They're just wasting player time and paying lip service to game balance.  

Game balance went out the window the second they moved from fewer, more difficult (based on the power curve at the time.) enemies to hoards of trash mobs without touching the drop tables.  There's also the issue of player investment with these nerfs.  I think about my Railjack and the difficulty curve in those missions.  A totally stock RJ struggles through an earth mission.  If you dump a lot of time and resources into one and get it maxed out with all the good avionics and components, you can clear the fighters from an earth mission without firing a shot in seconds, but it still takes a little while to clear fighters in the veil.  Should it not be like that?  Should all that player time and investment not be rewarded with your gear having the ability to quickly wipe low to mid level trash mobs?  What exactly is the point in spending all the time and resources required to dump 5 forma into a weapon if it's not "supposed" to be any more effective an a stock Lex Prime?  It takes potentially hours to farm the resources or BP's to build a weapon.  A day for each forma plus all the rare resources.  Potentially weeks of straight grinding to acquire all the mods you'd want for a high end build and even more time for the endo and credits to level those mods up.  Why do some people keep trying to act like that investment shouldn't result in a weapon that only slows down once you hit SP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Am 19.2.2021 um 10:52 schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

Because DE nerfs based on usage and popularity, these things will go untouched until someone does the thinking for the majority of the playerbase and puts a build out.  It's absurd to nerf a weapon because it's a popularity outlier when other weapons are just as strong but not as well-known and tons of weapons sit completely non-viable.  

DE nerfs weapons that are too strong. Your argument makes no sense. If other weapons are also too strong, then the solution is obviously to nerf them as well, not to nerf nothing and throw your hands in the air because of alleged unfairness. If you don't want nerfs then at least have the balls to say it.

 

Am 19.2.2021 um 10:52 schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

If they were nerfing things based on actual strength, they would have taken down several weapons at the same time.  They're just wasting player time and paying lip service to game balance.  

I really don't know how you can post this with a straight face literally in the same paragraph where you explain how things can fly under the radar. Did you not think far enough to realize that maybe that applies to DE as well or do you just not care because it's inconvenient to your argument?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Krankbert said:

DE nerfs weapons that are too strong. Your argument makes no sense. If other weapons are also too strong, then the solution is obviously to nerf them as well, not to nerf nothing and throw your hands in the air because of alleged unfairness. If you don't want nerfs then at least have the balls to say it.

 

I really don't know how you can post this with a straight face literally in the same paragraph where you explain how things fly under the radar.

I've explained multiple times how weapon and ability metas are tied directly to grind/reward tables/enemy balance.  I don't want nerfs (which I have very blatantly "had the balls" to say multiple times.) specifically because they refuse to address the other issues.  I have also said multiple times that if they were going to do a comprehensive rebalance of everything I would be fine with weapon nerfs.  Nerfing one weapon because it's popular (which is what they are doing.  Not because of strength, which is the point I made.) does nothing but waste player time.  It forces players into spending more resources into building out the other strong options because of an option being removed, and I think that's a large part of the reason they do it.  It doesn't matter that X, Y and Z are all as strong and effective as the Catchmoon.  The Catchmoon is going to get nerfed because the wide variety of factors that affect popularity are going to prevent players from spending resources on other weapons.  Not because it's too strong.  Because it's too popular.  They want even numbers across the board for usage but they don't want to do the work to have that happen.  They think they can nerf their way into build and loadout diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 11 Minuten schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

Nerfing one weapon because it's popular (which is what they are doing.  Not because of strength, which is the point I made.) 

No. It's not. I see no point in discussing balancing with someone who won't acknowledge that the weapons that got nerfed weren't just popular. You either have no clue about the balancing of this game or you're lying whenever something is inconvenient, so what would be the point.

  

vor 11 Minuten schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

Not because it's too strong.  Because it's too popular.  They want even numbers across the board for usage

They so obviously don't that it's not even funny. I don't believe for a second that anyone can look at the Mk1-Braton, regular Braton, Braton Prime, Braton Vandal and a Rattleguts Kitgun and honestly believe that those were all meant to be equal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Krankbert said:

I see no point in discussing balancing with someone who won't acknowledge that the weapons that got nerfed weren't just popular.

Then stop responding to me with posts like this because I'm not going to acknowledge something that isn't true.  The Catchmoon was good at wiping trash mobs.  I'd take any of my other kitguns (or are those not supposed to be equal either?) over the Catchmoon against actual hard targets.  Yes, old Catchmoon.  There are dozens of weapons that are good at wiping trash mobs.  The Catchmoon was popular because of ease of access with no MR requirement, ready made builds and promotion on Youtube (if you don't think popularity is affected by that sort of thing the multi-billion dollar marketing industry would like a word.) and yes, solid stats with good usability.  A wide projectile with innate punchthrough is idiot proof.  That doesn't mean it's this crazy outlier in effectiveness outside of low skilled players.  There were other options at the time that were as strong or stronger against things other than trash mobs.  There were other options at the time that, if you could actually aim even a little, could wipe trash mobs just as fast or faster.  There are now more options for both of those things.  It was an outlier in popularity, not effectiveness and that's why it got nerfed.  You can talk down to me because of your arrogant ideas about your own opinions all you like.  All you have to back you up is your haughty attitude and "but DE said!"  Meanwhile, I have an inventory full of things that prove the Catchmoon was not an outlier and didn't need a nerf.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan said:

Then stop responding to me with posts like this because I'm not going to acknowledge something that isn't true.  The Catchmoon was good at wiping trash mobs.  

I was playing back then, I know exactly what the Catchmoon was good at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Krankbert said:

I was playing back then, I know exactly what the Catchmoon was good at.

You obviously don't know what the rest of the arsenal was good at if you think it was that far above the other options.  The only place that it has ever been the meta for me is Exploiter, and that's only because the innate punchthrough makes the "shoot the orb after you rip a bit off" easier and faster.

My Gaze secondary does as much work as my Kuva Nukor.  They both fall off about the same time with the Nukor going just a little bit longer.  Both play second fiddle to melee and become primers after a certain point.  Trying to use my Nukor as an actual weapon and not a primer in high level content will see it run out of ammo pretty fast, meanwhile my Gaze will never run out of ammo because of access to Pax Charge.  It's my Gaze that comes with me on a solo Prodman run.  Not my Nukor.  It doesn't need a nerf because its utility, relative ease of access and promotion by content creators has made it popular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Krankbert said:

If you think that DE balances the game around solo Prodman runs then maybe you really weren't lying and actually are as clueless as you seem.

You gotta stop calling me a liar because I'm disagreeing with you.  I cannot believe you don't understand how arrogant that is.

But what content, pray tell, are we talking about balancing for?  Because if we really want to classify the Kuva Nukor as an outlier in power rather than popularity, it would only be that in higher level content, even though I still disagree there.

But in 90% of the content most players play in it doesn't have a much different time to kill than my Atomos.  I literally have secondaries in my arsenal right now that kill groups faster than it does.  Why does it need to be balanced down if it doesn't kill any faster than several things in my arsenal in mid to low level content?  Any extra strength that it may have is completely wasted there so it doesn't matter, and we can't balance for any higher level play like you said, so what are we balancing it down for if not popularity? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 18 Minuten schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

You gotta stop calling me a liar because I'm disagreeing with you.  I cannot believe you don't understand how arrogant that is.

I'm not calling you a liar because I disagree with you. I'm calling you a liar because what you say - like for example claiming that DE wants all weapons to be used equally or insisting that DE is balancing the game around solo prodman runs - is so outlandish that that's the most generous possibility. But sure. If you absolutely insist that this is actually your real opinion, then I will accept you as the guy who looked at the Braton series and the mechanically similar Kitgun and concluded that clearly the developer of this game must intend for all weapons to be used equally.

  Oh, by the way:

vor 18 Minuten schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

and we can't balance for any higher level play like you said

If you don't want me to call you a liar, it would really help if you weren't lying about what I was saying five lines later in the same post. I always find that actually telling the truth is far more effective in not getting called a liar than throwing a tantrum about it and then lying some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Krankbert said:

I'm not calling you a liar because I disagree with you. I'm calling you a liar because what you say - like for example claiming that DE wants all weapons to be used equally or insisting that DE is considering solo prodman runs in their balancing decisions - is so outlandish that that's the most generous possibility.

Even usage numbers (which is exactly what I said.) is something they've said they wanted before.  It doesn't mean completely equal, it means they don't want popular weapons.  Spikes in the graph.  Obviously there will be weapons that will be stronger than others but they expect that those in the stronger categories will all have equal use.  They talked about this specifically when nerfing the Catchmoon.  I'm not making that up, those are their ideas.  They fail to take all the factors (like utility, ease of access, etc.) into account and only nerf based on popularity.  I have a secondary, with no rivens or any funny business, that will out-kill a Kuva Nukor in nearly any content.  It's not on their radar at all, and because it has no "ZOMG WORLD ENDING RED CRITZ BUILD" video on YT, no one is running it from what I've seen in pubs and chat.  It's not popular in their stats they provided.  No one is talking about nerfing it.  Not because it's not strong.  Because it's not popular.

Nowhere did I say they should be balancing based on solo Prodman runs.  You bringing this up only adds to the point I made asking you what content they should be balancing for that you conveniently ignored because you don't have an answer for it.  I gave an example of why I don't think the Nukor is an outlier in terms of power because there are other weapons that can be preferable to it, even in higher level content.  If they have similar kill speed and power there they will have the same power in lower level content they claim to balance for.  If my MR 5 Atomos can kill lower level mobs just as fast as the Kuva Nukor, and I have weapons that are even faster at wiping mobs, why is the Kuva Nukor considered an outlier by you?  The only thing I can think of is that the beam chaining requires less aiming and is therefore more idiot proof.  Ease of use should not result in a nerf.  Popularity due to factors outside of strength should not result in a nerf.  It does not need a nerf based on strength because it is in-line with many other weapons in my arsenal.

I am not a goddamn liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

vor 4 Minuten schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

Nowhere did I say they should be balancing based on solo Prodman runs.

Okay. I accept that you don't think that DE is balancing the game around solo Prodman runs.

vor 23 Minuten schrieb (XBOX)TehChubbyDugan:

But what content, pray tell, are we talking about balancing for?  (...) Any extra strength that it may have is completely wasted there so it doesn't matter, and we can't balance for any higher level play like you said, so what are we balancing it down for if not popularity? 

So that means you contradicted me on something that we agree on out of spite. If you will contradict me on anything and everything, no matter what your opinion on the point actually is, why would I or anyone possibly keep talking to you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...