Riven disposition for new Prime Weapons

[IceColdHawk]

1 hour ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Some people won't accept any argument given, which isn't anyone's problem except your own. Sometimes you can't always get what you want.

If you can't kill enemies with a prime weapon, feel free to ask for build advice over in player helping players:

Dude, are you really that dense or just deliberately being ignorant? My goodness get off this thread or try to quote something that people ACTUALLY have said in this thread instead of being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious and trashing on peoples threads. You, giving me build advice i just can't even. Go ahead and show me a quote where someone said they couldn't kill a thing with a prime weapon. You're just misconstruing arguments so you can make them look bad for something they have NEVER said simply because you don't have a single counterargument to the problem that the OP has provided.

@--RV--WhiteWolfYou're better off making a thread up in reddit. Not my favorite place at all but you can have better discussions there with people that share their own experience and/or raise up proper arguments that could either explain things or give you a bit more food for thought, unlike here. I mean you see it yourself.

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

50 minutes ago, IceColdHawk said:

Dude, are you really that dense or just deliberately being ignorant? My goodness get off this thread or try to quote something that people ACTUALLY have said in this thread instead of being obnoxious for the sake of being obnoxious and trashing on peoples threads. You, giving me build advice i just can't even. Go ahead and show me a quote where someone said they couldn't kill a thing with a prime weapon. You're just misconstruing arguments so you can make them look bad for something they have NEVER said simply because you don't have a single counterargument to the problem that the OP has provided.

@--RV--WhiteWolfYou're better off making a thread up in reddit. Not my favorite place at all but you can have better discussions there with people that share their own experience and/or raise up proper arguments that could either explain things or give you a bit more food for thought, unlike here. I mean you see it yourself.

There have been countless complaints the past year from people saying "I bought a riven and you guys nerfed it".

"What is the point of buying a riven for a popular riven if you're just going to lower the dispo?" 

"You guys wasted my 800p investment, I logged on and my weapons stats were lower what gives?"

This basically stops people from playing Karen and lets people use a weapon based on them actually liking the weapon instead of following meta riven trends only to turn around and get mad at DE. Now they have no excuse. 

Here's the crazy part: 

No one forces players to be bandwagon meta players, and some people actually use a weapon regardless if it has a riven or not, and whether it has a high dispo or not. They use the weapon because they like the weapon.

What DE wants to see is: even if this weapon has a terrible dispo, are people still going to flock to it in droves. If that answer is yes, that means the weapon obviously performs well. 

Rivens are an optional side job and not mandatory. What makes weapons strong is forma and Primed mods used in conjunction with frame abilities, especially used in teams. 

[--RV--WhiteWolf]

On 2021-02-07 at 6:02 AM, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

There have been countless complaints the past year from people saying "I bought a riven and you guys nerfed it".

"What is the point of buying a riven for a popular riven if you're just going to lower the dispo?" 

"You guys wasted my 800p investment, I logged on and my weapons stats were lower what gives?" 

In a similar way one can say:

"I bought a warframe and you guys changed its skills. Now it's useless. Give back the platinum I spent". 

"I bought Arcane Energize with 1400p. Then you released Scarlet Spear. Now my investment is useless" 

"I bought some skin from the market. Now it drops as NW reward. I want the platinum back" 

...etc 

The list can go on and on. DE makes changes to the game. The only difference with rivens is that players KNOW ALREADY that a popular weapon will get disposition nerf. Which is not the case for the above examples. 

Also calling riven purchase an "investment" it's plain stupid. It's clear as night and day that rivens don't generate more platinum (unless you plan to flip the riven). The meta rivens were there to give you a way to enjoy the power of a new weapon at a high price. Yes, the riven disposition is getting nerf. But 2-3 months I can enjoy a strong(er) weapon at the cost of platinum. That's a good trade for me. 

On 2021-02-07 at 6:02 AM, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Rivens are an optional side job and not mandatory. What makes weapons strong is forma and Primed mods used in conjunction with frame abilities, especially used in teams. 

All mods are optional. Are Primed mods mandatory? Or any mod for that matter? Low riven disposition is just  removing one aspect from the game. 

Also, from a statistical point of view, the change is terrible. Let's assume the power of weapons is between 1-10 where: 

1- absolute worse 

10 - absolute best 

With the current implementation, unless the weapon can compete with "meta weapons" a.k.a. 10 value, it's MR fodder. With the old implementation, you had a 50% chance to complete / match / surpass (even if only temporarily) a meta weapon. 

If DE would be more active buffing the trash weapons, we wouldn't have this discussion. But they are not doing this. DE nerfs the top weapons but they rarely buff the trash weapons. I know several weapons with 1.5 riven disposition that weren't changed for years. So the argument of "DE balances weapons" and hence we can start with 0.5 disposition doesn't have correlation with reality. 

[(PSN)Madurai-Prime]

10 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

In a similar way one can say:

"I bought a warframe and you guys changed its skills. Now it's useless. Give back the platinum I spent". 

"I bought Arcane Energize with 1400p. Then you released Scarlet Spear. Now my investment is useless" 

"I bought some skin from the market. Now it drops as NW reward. I want the platinum back" 

...etc 

The list can go on and on. DE makes changes to the game. The only difference with rivens is that players KNOW ALREADY that a popular weapon will get disposition nerf. Which is not the case for the above examples. 

Also calling riven purchase an "investment" it's plain stupid. It's clear as night and day that rivens don't generate more platinum (unless you plan to flip the riven). The meta rivens were there to give you a way to enjoy the power of a new weapon at a high price. Yes, the riven disposition is getting nerf. But 2-3 months I can enjoy a strong(er) weapon at the cost of platinum. That's a good trade for me. 

All mods are optional. Are Primed mods mandatory? Or any mod for that matter? Low riven disposition is just  removing one aspect from the game. 

Also, from a statistical point of view, the change is terrible. Let's assume the power of weapons is between 1-10 where: 

1- absolute worse 

10 - absolute best 

With the current implementation, unless the weapon can compete with "meta weapons" a.k.a. 10 value, it's MR fodder. With the old implementation, you had a 50% chance to complete / match / surpass (even if only temporarily) a meta weapon. 

If DE would be more active buffing the trash weapons, we wouldn't have this discussion. But they are not doing this. DE nerfs the top weapons but they rarely buff the trash weapons. I know several weapons with 1.5 riven disposition that weren't changed for years. So the argument of "DE balances weapons" and hence we can start with 0.5 disposition doesn't have correlation with reality. 

Well tell that to your other riven users. Those are their words, not mine. Not every player has your viewpoint, hence the changes. DE can't please everyone. 

And most mods don't have MR requirements......especially requirements as high as MR 16.....

 

[--RV--WhiteWolf]

On 2021-02-06 at 3:22 PM, Jarriaga said:

At the end of the day, this is a case of diametrically opposed desires.

DE want for Rivens to be equalizers at the expense of power.

Some players want for Rivens to push power at the expense of balance.

Players in the second group had it their way for years and it became a highly disliked problem. Now DE are taking the first approach and complains have significantly lessened and changed in tone from lost investments to lost enthusiasm.

What is worse? Obviously depends on the camp you're on.

That means flat out nerfing the old weapon to 0.8 when the Prime is released. That is a massive and drastic jump. I obviously understand you actually want it the other way around, with the Prime being at 1.2 if base is at 1.5, but anything higher than 0.5 means that DE will be unable to measure base popularity sans Riven, which will then lead to the Prime bring nerfed and people then complaining about the nerf.

You can't have it both ways. DE's current approach means more organic, long-lasting buffs (Even if small) while what you want is historically proven to lead to artificial quick nerfs. Most people appreciate buffs over nerfs. They'd rather be pleasantly surprised over a buff down the line than feeling they have to move on from the weapon in 3 months with the new revision.

Situation 1:  Rivens start with 1 disposition.

People in camp 1:  A few months later they complain that their riven was nerfed due to weapon popularity. 

People in camp 2:  For a few months, they enjoy the extra power of rivens for the premium platinum price. 

Situation 2: Rivens start with 0.5 disposition 

Nobody buys rivens because they are useless. 

Non-Prime weapons are stronger (for the most part) than the prime weapons. No reason to even bother with new prime weapons. 

I understand that in situation 1, people are on 2 sides. If you are on camp1, the simple solution is, shocking news,  to not buy a riven. If you can't accept the riven disposition nerf, don't use it / pay platinum you can't afford. Simple.

On situation 2, however, everybody loses. The option of rivens is removed entirely -> hence no problem, right?

It's like an alcoholic advocating that shops should not sell beer because it's bad for his health. Then shops remove beer from stores because he can't help himself. The option was there before the change without screwing anyone who didn't have that problem to begin with. 

[Jarriaga]

2 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

I understand that in situation 1, people are on 2 sides. If you are on camp1, the simple solution is, shocking news,  to not buy a riven. If you can't accept the riven disposition nerf, don't use it / pay platinum you can't afford. Simple.

Tell that to the hundreds of complainers in here:

Or here....

Or here....

Or here...

..Or here....

Or here...

Or here...

Or here...

Or maybe here?

So go ahead; try to convince them to be responsible with their Riven purchases. Try to convince them to make peace with this being an opt-in system that is explicitly advertised to be bound to constant nerfs.

You won't. 

They want for the Riven system to be unmitigated, unrestrained, unmeasured powercreep. They want for DE to give up on their "Give older weapons a chance" intentions and bow down to what the community wants.

Those people forced DE's hand. Now we all pay the price, yes, but at least those people no longer have a leg to stand on.

Pick your poison. You can't have it both ways.

[--RV--WhiteWolf]

29 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Tell that to the hundreds of complainers in here:

Or here....

Or here....

Or here...

..Or here....

Or here...

Or here...

Or here...

Or maybe here?

So go ahead; try to convince them to be responsible with their Riven purchases. Try to convince them to make peace with this being an opt-in system that is explicitly advertised to be bound to constant nerfs.

You won't. 

They want for the Riven system to be unmitigated, unrestrained, unmeasured powercreep. They want for DE to give up on their "Give older weapons a chance" intentions and bow down to what the community wants.

Those people forced DE's hand. Now we all pay the price, yes, but at least those people no longer have a leg to stand on.

Pick your poison. You can't have it both ways.

Complains will always be higher than the appreciation. Nobody will make a forum post with "Thank you DE for balancing weapons". Most of forum posts are complains. In the threads you linked I see mixed feelings. I didn't count to see how many were on each side but clearly it was not a one side request. 

Also this doesn't fix the problem. It can also happen that one weapon gets popular due to riven disposition increase -> nerf incoming. We have the same story only delayed timeline. 

It's like someone complaining about Primed mods being on Baro rotation and the solution would be to remove prime mods from the game. 

This change will only make long term players play less the game as the only "grind" remaining for a MR30 are the rivens. Remove that and people will only log in during operations. 

[Jarriaga]

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

Complains will always be higher than the appreciation.

Which still serves as a barometer, however skewed it might be.

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

Nobody will make a forum post with "Thank you DE for balancing weapons".

This is false. There are numerous example just within those very same threads, my posts included as I attempted in vain to reason about personal accountability. We only get called white knights, shills, and people who will bend over no matter what DE do.

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

In the threads you linked I see mixed feelings.

You must be doing some hardcore selective reading. Those with mixed feelings are the absolute minority because those people tend to be ones who understand that Rivens were not designed with the purpose of making the best even better. Heck, I even called out some people that only show up to the forums when there is a Riven disposition update to show their "indignation" only to do it again in the next thread.

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

I didn't count to see how many were on each side but clearly it was not a one side request. 

Hardcore selective reading then.

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

It's like someone complaining about Primed mods being on Baro rotation and the solution would be to remove prime mods from the game. 

Not an applicable analogy since Prime mods are not retroactively buffed/nerfed while already in your arsenal after a set rotation.

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

This change will only make long term players play less the game as the only "grind" remaining for a MR30 are the rivens.

This is a huge assumption on your end that only functions, ironically, by ignoring the personal accountability aspect you've been touting. Those who want to grind Rivens for the purpose they were advertised for (Making the weak slightly better) are not affected at all because old weapons already had their disposition adjustments.

Your argument only works for those who want for Rivens to do something they were not intended to do, but people got accustomed to because of DE's passiveness and extremely slow refinement/correction targets. So where's the personal responsibility here when at the end of the day they'd be chasing a target that goes against intent? It's the same of those players who only want for Rivens to be nothing more powercreep. Personal responsibility involves partaking in an action while acknowledging what it is, not what you want it or wish it to be.

8 hours ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

Remove that and people will only log in during operations. 

That is DE's fault for not designating the necessary resources needed to develop and sustain an actual developer-defined endgame so players don't have to chase personal targets as their own endgame. They know they'll bleed players for this. They either don't care or their spreadsheets show the number is inconsequential. After all, game population has been in a replacement trajectory for years now, with new people eventually starting the game with the 0.5 disposition rule day 1. This is exemplified by the Helminth pre-release adjustment from MR15 to MR8.

[(PSN)GER_SIGNUM]

Am 2.2.2021 um 21:03 schrieb TARINunit9:

So wait, you think anything with low disposition is MR fodder? Because the usual logic goes the other direction

There are two logics. DE logic, Player logic. 

[--RV--WhiteWolf]

34 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

This is a huge assumption on your end that only functions, ironically, by ignoring the personal accountability aspect you've been touting. Those who want to grind Rivens for the purpose they were advertised for (Making the weak slightly better) are not affected at all because old weapons already had their disposition adjustments.

Your argument only works for those who want for Rivens to do something they were not intended to do, but people got accustomed to because of DE's passiveness and extremely slow refinement/correction targets. So where's the personal responsibility here when at the end of the day they'd be chasing a target that goes against intent? It's the same of those players who only want for Rivens to be nothing more powercreep. Personal responsibility involves partaking in an action while acknowledging what it is, not what you want it or wish it to be.

I disagree with your point. I want to riven to fill its exact purpose. I am not getting it for the new weapons. Unless the weapon is straight up comparable with a meta weapon (e.g. fully deserving 0.5 disposition), then the riven disposition is set incorrectly. From a statistical point of view, that's unlikely. Based on numerous examples, it might take a year for the weapon to reach to its "correct" disposition. 

With the old system however: 

• If the weapon is average, I would be still comparable with a meta weapon with a good riven.
• If the weapon is above average, it would be better than a meta weapon with a good riven. That would follow a nerf. Since the weapon would be quite popular, the price for the riven would be high. This is the situation where you pay the platinum to have a temporarily overpowered weapon. 
• If the weapon is below average, at least the riven would close the gap to make the weapon at least good enough

So assuming the premise that rivens have to correct the weapon performance, starting with 1 disposition is way more balanced (the maximum deviation is 0.5) than the current system. 

So let's not pretend that the change is for balance reason. Math-wise, it doesn't add up. 

The only thing the new system adds is no immediate nerfs at the cost of balance. 

[Vortex]

I still think that DE should increase the minimum disposition, at least for guns.

[(PSN)GER_SIGNUM]

Am 5.2.2021 um 11:22 schrieb _R_o_g_u_e_:

It worked in my favour, I go a Corinth riven, and I was a huge fan of the default Corinth. Built the prime, and the prime reload annoyed the hell out of me.

So I get to use the default Corinth that I enjoy more, with a more powerful riven.

Personally, I’m happy with that :D

You bring it to the point! It was same to me and I dont use the prime version. The non prime is fine for me. The prime version is MR fodder, nothing else. 

[Jarriaga]

10 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

I am not getting it for the new weapons.

You can not get it for new weapons, and expecting it for new weapons means you are not expecting their advertised purpose. New weapons (Normal and Prime) already are more powerful on their own and don't need help vs. a 3 year old variant that has been powercrept out of the game.

12 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

Unless the weapon is straight up comparable with a meta weapon (e.g. fully deserving 0.5 disposition), then the riven disposition is set incorrectly.

I don't see how that statement contradicts DE's goal unless you mean it's wrong if it's that way day 1 instead of day 100 when the new revision kicks in. We are circling back to you preferring an inorganic nerf over an organic buff.

16 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

With the old system however: 

• If the weapon is average, I would be still comparable with a meta weapon with a good riven.
• If the weapon is above average, it would be better than a meta weapon with a good riven. That would follow a nerf. Since the weapon would be quite popular, the price for the riven would be high. This is the situation where you pay the platinum to have a temporarily overpowered weapon. 
• If the weapon is below average, at least the riven would close the gap to make the weapon at least good enough

DE don't balance the game around Rivens and meta or their wants or needs. If they did, they'd be pushing MR25 weapons by now in consideration they've stated the MR bracket dictates its expected power ballpark. They've never made a weapon past MR15, which indicates the MR15 bracket is a ceiling and nothing will go beyond it. That automatically means that most newly-introduced weapons will be weaker than the existing top of the line. If they are stronger than their MR bracket then their bracket is wrong as per DE's own logic and should be increased. 

16 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

So assuming the premise that rivens have to correct the weapon performance, starting with 1 disposition is way more balanced (the maximum deviation is 0.5) than the current system. 

That is an incorrect assumption because % based buffs means that top of the line weapons benefit disproportionately more from the same disposition. In a Nukor, a 1.5 disposition status chance is a smaller buff than what the Kuva Nukor gets at 1 because of the KV's base status chance of 50 vs. 29 for base Nukor. Edge cases like the Aksomati are just that, Edge cases..... No, not even that It's a paper "stats" comparison without taking practicality into account. The accuracy spool up mechanic is inverted in both weapons, so even at the exact same stats, Aksomati Prime deals more consistent damage. Yet paper numbers favor Aksomati.

30 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

So let's not pretend that the change is for balance reason. Math-wise, it doesn't add up. 

See above.

33 minutes ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

The only thing the new system adds is no immediate nerfs at the cost of balance. 

Balance is restored automatically in due time. I don't see how these are mutually exclusive unless your definition is "day 1 or nothing".

[--RV--WhiteWolf]

38 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

You can not get it for new weapons, and expecting it for new weapons means you are not expecting their advertised purpose. New weapons (Normal and Prime) already are more powerful on their own and don't need help vs. a 3 year old variant that has been powercrept out of the game.

1 hour ago, --RV--WhiteWolf said:

According to who? New weapons can have comparable stats with older weapons. There is a train of examples. What makes you think a newer weapon will have superior stats than an older weapon? 

38 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

That is an incorrect assumption because % based buffs means that top of the line weapons benefit disproportionately more from the same disposition. In a Nukor, a 1.5 disposition status chance is a smaller buff than what the Kuva Nukor gets at 1 because of the KV's base status chance of 50 vs. 29 for base Nukor. Edge cases like the Aksomati are just that, Edge cases..... No, not even that It's a paper "stats" comparison without taking practicality into account. The accuracy spool up mechanic is inverted in both weapons, so even at the exact same stats, Aksomati Prime deals more consistent damage. Yet paper numbers favor Aksomati.

The % difference is the same. Sure 1% of a high stat is more than 1% of a low stat. Yes, it's not linear but that affects both edges (meta weapons and pure trash weapons). The enemies scale in % and not fixed values. Therefore % as damage indicator is a more accurate reference correlation to their use case. And even if we take your argument - which I disagree with but just to keep it simple - we should the disposition to 0.75-ish and not 0.5.

38 minutes ago, Jarriaga said:

Balance is restored automatically in due time. I don't see how these are mutually exclusive unless your definition is "day 1 or nothing".

Balanced is restored automatically in due time with the previous system as well. This change does absolutely nothing to address the initial balance discrepancy . Hence the point that the riven starting with 0.5 disposition has nothing to do with balance.

On the contrary, nerfs on an overpowered weapon happen WAY more faster (I've seen 2-3 weeks) versus a buff to a weapon (which seems to take 1 year). So the proper disposition would have been reached, statistically, faster with the older implementation. 

In both systems (old or new one) the initial balance is unknown. However, from a mathematical perspective (giving the maximum error % deviation) and DE policy of updating the riven dispositions, it's plain clear the old system would be better balanced at start and faster to reach its "correct" disposition. 

[Zimzala]

I just have to ask.

Do you all enjoy arguing in the same circles for years on end?

Is this some form of entertainment for you?

Do you think these threads will somehow force DE or the players to 'change'?

Really, I am curious, what is the point of these threads that never really go away and just contain circular arguments that never really go anywhere?

I would love, love to hear some of the reasoning here behind the intent of these types of threads, beyond just arguing in circles.

Are the people here trying to become game makers and using forums as a sounding board?

I just don't understand why these circular arguments are so popular when it's just a few opposing outlooks talking over each other, often full of 'righteous fury' that if their idea is not followed, DE will cease to exist.

Why?