Jump to content

Why Don't You Like Guns?


Recommended Posts

Just now, (PSN)thegarada said:

Can we please stop these pointless threads?

And miss out on all the projecting, frustration, unintended hilarity, hypocrisy, flawed arguments and $&#^posting that usually ensues from them?

What else are we supposed to do between major patches?

Spoiler

I agree we'd all be better off with this type of thread going the way of the dodo.

 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Paradoxity said:

Trick is, how do we fix that? Nerfing Melee is certainly one option, though I personally am pretty sick of "nerf the best option so everything else looks better!" 

Personally I'm kinda stumped. Give single target ranged weapons innate punch through or armor pen? Buff Ranged weapon mods significantly? Say 'sod it, Outriders looks fun'? 

 

Interestingly, I think DE already fixed this problem.

The big question is: How do you make single target weapons useful in a horde game? Surely, if the enemies are coming in a horde, then melee / AOE weapons will always be better, no? 

I think the most satisfying answer is to include priority targets. Targets that are very dangerous to get close to, who resist melee & AOE damage, and reward good aim & awareness and taking them out from range. I think this is the idea DE had with heavy gunners, bombards, ancients, etc... but it didn't really work out. DE forgot to add the melee & AOE resistance, and making them dangerous. So, due to the crazy power of melee, these priority targets became basically equivalent to all the trash that gets wiped out super easily by melee and AOE.

But, DE did revisit this idea, and got it right! They added the Nox unit. This time they remembered to include the melee & AOE resistance, and (to a lesser extent) they are dangerous to get close to because of their charge and toxin damage. 

I think DE should lean into this idea. Heavy priority targets, dangerous to get close to, but with a weakpoint that only single target ranged weapons can reliably hit. I would like to see heavy gunners and bombards get a flat 95% resistance to all melee and AOE damage, but remove all the armor on their head. Also, give them some sort of frenzy mode if the player gets too close, making them a real threat. [For example, a dispel, player max HP debuff, temporary player armor / shield removal, or a variety of other "Oh Crap!" things.] EDIT: And of course, similar priority-style targets for other factions.

I think this would make single target guns viable, without even needing to buff or nerf any weapons!

Edited by Sevek7
added EDIT:
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Sevek7 said:

I would like to see heavy gunners and bombards get a flat 95% resistance to all melee and AOE damage, but remove all the armor on their head. Also, give them some sort of frenzy mode if the player gets too close, making them a real threat. [For example, a dispel, player max HP debuff, temporary player armor / shield removal, or a variety of other "Oh Crap!" things.]

Now there is something I can agree with.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am beginning to think the OP is trolling.

Though the thread is not toxic , the OP is appearing very bullheaded in their response with no willingness to accept they were wrong or atleast do not provide the full facts. 

And you know what they say about half truths.

Just to add my own inputs to the discussion.

But let's get some things out if the way first.

When you say "guns" without saying which type you are generalising or considering  all of the guns on average with " melee" on average.

This itself is a bad mechanism to determine effectiveness. 

All weapons are not equal , they may get the job done but some will get the job done better than other.

That is the crux of the "argument" , I use the term lightly as there is no real argument here.

Majority of the melee will perform better than majority of the guns in majority of the missions. It is an observable fact and anyone that disagrees is either not using a good enough build or they are at a stage in the game where damage needed is not high.

A few exceptional guns could compete for some time , but eventually they will be falling behind too.

The example given by the OP is one such exception. Tonkor is an AOE with good damage (crit and status ) (they also seem to be taking advantage of the frames mechanics but that's fine)

Using an exception for an example is also a bad mechanism to start an argument.

If you say " but different MR weapons for different  content " that should apply to melee as well , but it does not hold true , very low MR melee weapons can still outperform high MR guns in any scenario.

If OP had said "aoe guns can still perform well " there wouldn't be these many arguments , because it wouldnt be wrong.

So please be specific in your statement and don't use exceptions to prove the rule.

Putting words in people's mouths is also not suggested as it only weakens your own credibility.

Edited by 0_The_F00l
Typos
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

You can't mindlessly clear the entire game by pressing one button

 It was hyperbole...

Spoiler

... not that it's in any way inaccurate.

You can very much press E to win.

3 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Go into an arbitration and use your abilities to clear the map....let me know how it goes.

 I'm a Khora main, so it goes quite well tyvm. (ETA: And guess what I use to deal with drones? Melee!) Though that's kind of the point, why do you say it like it's a good thing for Warframe abilities to not work or scale well in a game called Warframe?

3 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

Warframe isn't like COD or battlefield or Halo...at all. Nice try though. Warframe is completely different than them.

In terms of the overall gameplay and mechanics, yeah no S#&$. But in terms of weapons and progression it is, or at least it should be. You can use the first gun you get in CoD even at the highest levels of play. You can use anything in Halo and be competitive at least on a base level. Other guns might be better or flashier, but the base stuff at least works everywhere you go. That's obviously a good thing. If you're playing on the Starchart you can use just about anything and get by just like those other games. Now this is mainly because enemy EHP got nerfed into the dirt with the S-curve scaling thing and not that weapons are actually balanced, but still this is already how Warframe is and is generally the direction the game has gone over the years. This should apply everywhere to everything, including Steel Path.

3 hours ago, (PSN)Madurai-Prime said:

All weapons shouldn't be viable for Steel path

Should all Warframes be viable and fun to use? Yes, obviously. So why not weapons? If someone likes a gun, why can't they use it where they want? Is not being able to use the weapon you like a good thing? Heck no!

Warframe is at its worst when a select few items dominate everything. Carrier dominating was a bad thing. Itzal dominating was a bad thing. Amesha dominating is a bad thing. Kuva Nukor and Catchmoon dominating is a bad thing. Ignis Wraith and Kuva Bramma dominating is a bad thing. Melee dominating is a bad thing. Wukong, Mesa, and Saryn dominating is a bad thing. Khora dominating Steel Path farming was a bad thing. Required mods dominating is a bad thing. None of this is good or healthy for the game.

More viable options means more variety. It means you can get bored of a weapon and just pick another one of the hundreds in the game to have fun with and know that it'll work wherever you take it. It means any new gun you make is going to be worth using. It means that if you like a particular thing you can continue to enjoy that thing without having to handicap yourself and make everything harder than it has to be. How is it that you take "everything should be fun and viable" as a bad thing? Who argues for less?

Edited by PublikDomain
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will repeat what I wrote in a similar thread. Melee is significantly more powerful than guns with less effort. Forma investment isn't that heavy and there are stances that increase mod capacity. And there are melee-specific mods such as Condition Overload that boost damage heavily. On top of that, you don't need ammo for melee nor do you need to reload them.

Edited by Genitive
  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Aldain said:

with a Rivenless Veldt

Maaaaaaan, you can't pull that with a Veldt even if it had a riven.

 

The thing just sucks. Sadly. It's such a nice weapon but the stats just don't cut it.

Edited by o0Despair0o
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guns are in a questionable state, but not just becasue they are bad. It is slightly more complicated.

Compared to melee, guns underperform. However, melee is stupidly overpowered and even beginner melee weapons can take on SP. Steel Path is the toughest content in the game, it is OK for majority of the arsenal to underperform in the hardest content in the game, that's is an inherernt feature "hard". It is not OK for 90% of melee weapons to be viable in SP.

Another issue with SP is, that it has higher enemy densitiy and thus naturaly favors AoE weapons. But all melee are AoE, but not all guns are AoE. Even if a gun has acceptable TTK against a single enemy (and a lot of them actually still do have sub 1second TTK), the sheer number of enemies will choke its overall performance.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShortCat said:

Compared to melee, guns underperform. However, melee is stupidly overpowered and even beginner melee weapons can take on SP. Steel Path is the toughest content in the game, it is OK for majority of the arsenal to underperform in the hardest content in the game, that's is an inherernt feature "hard". It is not OK for 90% of melee weapons to be viable in SP.

Another issue with SP is, that it has higher enemy densitiy and thus naturaly favors AoE weapons. But all melee are AoE, but not all guns are AoE. Even if a gun has acceptable TTK against a single enemy (and a lot of them actually still do have sub 1second TTK), the sheer number of enemies will choke its overall performance.

Well, that's all true. So you want melee nerfed then - by how much?

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Traumtulpe said:

Well, that's all true. So you want melee nerfed then - by how much?

There are some options available.

  1. You could reduce melee top damage by nerfing BR, CO & WW. This has to happen at some point as those mods break the game.
  2. Restrict melee AoE power. This can be done by another look at the folow through damage multiplier.
  3. More enemies which punish melee playstyles. There are Grineer Guardsman, who will force you in a stumble animation with their block; Ghouls leave toxin/cold clouds and punish close proximity kills.
  4. And melee profits from gun support via priming, while guns do not profit from melee nearly as much.
Edited by ShortCat
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, ShortCat said:
  1. You could reduce melee top damage by nerfing BR, CO & WW. This has to happen at some point as those mods breake the game.
  2. Restrict melee AoE power. This can be done by another look at the folow through damage multiplier.
  3. More enemies which punish melee playstyles. There are Grineer Guardsman, who will force you in a stumble animation with their block; Ghouls leave toxin/cold clouds and punish close proximity kills.

WW should probably stay, as melee doesn't have multishot and status from melee might become irrelevant otherwise. Also, BR/CO/WW are (mostly) irrelevant to heavy attacks, which would need to be adressed as well if you want to accomplish anything. Otherwise fair points.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Melee is in a good place with its current power level, because it puts you in harm's way while closing the distance with enemy units, and puts in in range of a variety of already-in-existence melee counters, such as the ground punch knockback, flame walls, grapples (oh, the horrible grapples), and Ghoul/Nox type toxic clouds (and I'm sure I'm leaving out some, as I'm getting ready to leave for work). The only time I feel comfortable using melee against difficult content, is while playing a tanky frame like Inaros or Nekros (there are others, but this is just for examples' sake.)

Without that power level, it would not be worth entering melee range, when it would be far safer to stay at a distance. If anything, guns need to be able to ignore enemy armor and have punch through innately. I would not be mad if any single target weapon could be modded to one-shot any single enemy. (And I agree that enemy heads should all have zero armor.)

Personally, I HATE using guns, and will be a melee main no matter what. So if they add hard counters to melee against some units, FORCING you to either take a metric ton of damage near them, or be unable to strike weakpoints with melee attacks , I'll be mightily angry, and it might just spoil the game as much as Melee 2.99998's original release condition of stances.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked through this for months ever since the Bramma nerf was announced so I don't want to write down the whole AoE/ways of damage application thing for the 10th time.

However, I think I realized while reading/skimming through this thread that the absolute main issue is that people have different expectations when it comes to how far into SP weapons should generally work. Some are fine with a regular SP mission being clearable and others on the opposite site of the opinion-spectrum expect the game to be balanced and weapons to be viable until SP enemies hit the level cap which has never been balanced in any shape or form on regular or SP missions. Personaly, if I can smoothly play SP Mot for 30 minutes in conjunction with the rest of my loadout with it, I consider it "serviceable" - at least in terms of damage numbers.

Anyways, in order to have anything that resembles a fruitful discussion about this and potential changes that aren't a bandaid and last for some time people would firstly have to agree on some sort of base where they want things to be balanced around and always start from that baseline if evaluating the viability of something. If you took sorties as baseline pretty much everything is viable for example. Good luck with reaching consensus on a baseline. My guess: DE does not see level 9999 SP enemies as being that base. No matter how much the 2% of players who play the game that way complain. Just a guess though.

Another area to look at that is related to this instead of the weapons would be the enemy scaling and status effects by the way. I'm not going to do that though. I'm too dumb and lazy and relatively content with how it is at my personal baseline of balance when I judge by full loadouts instead of each weapon individually. Granted single target weapons and abilities generally are whack on all levels in comparison, but because of kill efficiency not because it doesn't kill with the right loadout.

Lastly, getting a melee damage and/or range nerf probably just results in the meta shifting more towards heavier ability and AoE gun usage and Helminth being more important. Be it more CC or more damage and damage amplification for melee like min-maxers do already with Ensnare, Roar, Breach Surge or Silence for example. This doesn't elevate the currently unpopular guns at all and just narrows down the meta further. So, the exact opposite of what the complaint is about.

Edited by (PSN)Deeceem
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Sevek7 said:

I think the most satisfying answer is to include priority targets. Targets that are very dangerous to get close to, who resist melee & AOE damage, and reward good aim & awareness and taking them out from range. I think this is the idea DE had with heavy gunners, bombards, ancients, etc... but it didn't really work out. DE forgot to add the melee & AOE resistance, and making them dangerous. So, due to the crazy power of melee, these priority targets became basically equivalent to all the trash that gets wiped out super easily by melee and AOE.

But, DE did revisit this idea, and got it right! They added the Nox unit. This time they remembered to include the melee & AOE resistance, and (to a lesser extent) they are dangerous to get close to because of their charge and toxin damage. 

I think DE should lean into this idea. Heavy priority targets, dangerous to get close to, but with a weakpoint that only single target ranged weapons can reliably hit. I would like to see heavy gunners and bombards get a flat 95% resistance to all melee and AOE damage, but remove all the armor on their head. Also, give them some sort of frenzy mode if the player gets too close, making them a real threat. [For example, a dispel, player max HP debuff, temporary player armor / shield removal, or a variety of other "Oh Crap!" things.] EDIT: And of course, similar priority-style targets for other factions.

I think this would make single target guns viable, without even needing to buff or nerf any weapons!

I 100% second this. The game NEEDS priority targets. Nox are a good start but yet are easily defeated by any melee weapon as long as you have a little bit of combo going.
I also like the idea of the Manics but they really need to feel like more of a proper threat that makes you horde up with your teammates until they are disposed of.

Heavy Gunners, Bombards, hell even those special corpus units you encounter at 'higher' levels (I forgot the names) do not feel any different from your average Butcher walking around the map. It makes the missions insanely boring.

Please DE, for the love of God, I beg you please take some shameless inspiration from your main competitors and make those minions interesting. Rework them completely! Make them something to deal with! Make us having to use the ENTIRETY of the huge arsenal of frames and weapons you give us. Why would I play any support frame to buff up my team and support if all of the mobs die within half a second? It's not just guns that 'suffer' from this. No frame or weapon feel like they serve ANY purpose if you can walk through any mission mashing 'E' while watching a Stream on your second monitor.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the weapons are not "bad". of course you can play SP with them.
only in comparison to mele they are extremely weak. because why make life difficult for yourself? Or how quickly does a fully armored elite lay on the floor after 1-2 seconds with heaps of stacks from the kuva nukor and 1-2 hits from the mele with "Condition Overload"?
or which gun can attach so many heat + viral + corr stacks and deal damage at the same time?
except Bubonico maybe ... but that is not effective either, because you have to wait for munition here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

guns are still fun, but they need mods or mechanics added to them so that they can scale up like Melee. at lower levels guns work absolutely fine, but once you hit steel path and are dealing with high armour levels, they really start to fall off damage-wise. given that this topic has appeared quite often as of late, I wouldn't be surprised if DE might actually mention this on the Devstream, even if it's just a "we are aware of this and have plans". they definitely need to do/say something, because this problem isn't goign to go away on it's own.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Primary weapons need a bump to the power levels of secondaries at least. And I've got really tired of Hunter munitions meta. But people thinking guns should be on the same level as melee, or that guns are unviable, are delusional.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel the OP doesn't exactly address the point at hand, because the argument isn't that guns are weak, but that guns are outclassed by melee -- in order to make a complete counterargument, the OP would have to not only list footage of guns being used in high-level content, but also compare it to footage of melee weapons being used in that same content.

Personally, I don't think guns are weak at all, though evidence does suggest that melee is even stronger, hence the imbalance. While I do like guns, I do have some criticisms that would answer the question in the OP:

  • Guns have ammo, which either doesn't matter at all or has the result of making the gun unusable mid-mission, a problem itself eliminated with the simple addition of an ammo mutation mod. Warframe isn't really a game where ammo matters all that much in practice, yet it's a system that exists for pretty much every gun, and covers our tilesets in rainbow carpets of largely useless boxes.
  • I don't like how rolling breaks reloading. To be honest, I don't care much for reloading itself (one advantage melee has over guns), but I specifically dislike how the move designed to get us out of sticky situations leaves us just as vulnerable as before we initiated it.
  • Properly appreciating a gun's power takes more commitment than melee. Melee weapons have additional capacity through stances and generally cheaper mod drains, so even with zero Forma, a Catalyst is enough to get a complete or near-complete build on many weapons. By contrast, guns have high mod costs and no stances (plus now an extra Exilus slot), and so require several Forma to even approach a properly functional build. This I suspect is why many otherwise perfectly serviceable guns go unappreciated, because many players don't see the point in investing more time and resources in them unless they give disproportionately high returns.

To be clear, melee has its own problems (in fact, I think it has some far worse problems than guns), but if nothing else, if the above were to be addressed in some form or another, I'd enjoy guns even more.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, PublikDomain said:

 It was hyperbole...

  Reveal hidden contents

... not that it's in any way inaccurate.

You can very much press E to win.

 I'm a Khora main, so it goes quite well tyvm. (ETA: And guess what I use to deal with drones? Melee!) Though that's kind of the point, why do you say it like it's a good thing for Warframe abilities to not work or scale well in a game called Warframe?

In terms of the overall gameplay and mechanics, yeah no S#&$. But in terms of weapons and progression it is, or at least it should be. You can use the first gun you get in CoD even at the highest levels of play. You can use anything in Halo and be competitive at least on a base level. Other guns might be better or flashier, but the base stuff at least works everywhere you go. That's obviously a good thing. If you're playing on the Starchart you can use just about anything and get by just like those other games. Now this is mainly because enemy EHP got nerfed into the dirt with the S-curve scaling thing and not that weapons are actually balanced, but still this is already how Warframe is and is generally the direction the game has gone over the years. This should apply everywhere to everything, including Steel Path.

Should all Warframes be viable and fun to use? Yes, obviously. So why not weapons? If someone likes a gun, why can't they use it where they want? Is not being able to use the weapon you like a good thing? Heck no!

Warframe is at its worst when a select few items dominate everything. Carrier dominating was a bad thing. Itzal dominating was a bad thing. Amesha dominating is a bad thing. Kuva Nukor and Catchmoon dominating is a bad thing. Ignis Wraith and Kuva Bramma dominating is a bad thing. Melee dominating is a bad thing. Wukong, Mesa, and Saryn dominating is a bad thing. Khora dominating Steel Path farming was a bad thing. Required mods dominating is a bad thing. None of this is good or healthy for the game.

More viable options means more variety. It means you can get bored of a weapon and just pick another one of the hundreds in the game to have fun with and know that it'll work wherever you take it. It means any new gun you make is going to be worth using. It means that if you like a particular thing you can continue to enjoy that thing without having to handicap yourself and make everything harder than it has to be. How is it that you take "everything should be fun and viable" as a bad thing? Who argues for less?

Like I said.....I can go ahead and post the Steel path developer notes if you'd like. The steel path is not the main game. 

You can use any weapon and frame against any faction for the regular starchart. 

And there's always something that will perform better in basically every game. Call of duty had the "noobtube" and the intervention sniper rifle, and the knife using that mod that let you lunge at enemies from like 10ft away.

If you take a look at some of the weapons that have been released lately, they all have much better base stats and even include some aoe because everyone knows they perform better especially in a horde based game. You have the kuva weapons with more on the way, the prob Cernos, the bubonico etc. People have been asking for and willing to pay a lot of plat for rivens for these weapons ever since they came out. That's not an accident. 

Some random pistol is never going to be a room clearer in Steel path so just come to terms with it.

You can make some weapons much better for the Steel path, but that actually requires knowing how to synergize frames and weapons and mods and arcanes, which average players are too lazy or inexperienced to do. But thinking you can just take some akmagnus to Steel path Mot solo and wipe the map is a really silly thing to think.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Why run a single rotation to try and prove that ranged is good? It doesnt become interesting until later. And even with 1 rotation your single target setup shows that it just doesnt work or come even remotely close to melee since you go a full 5 minutes without the acolyte spawning. With melee you have a fairly consistant spawn rate at 3 to 3.30 in any survival mission.

The Tonkor certainly works, but again, you are only doing a single rota. Does it hold up in longer "normal" farm sessions, or do you have to rely on a few and then waste time on loading screens? Can you run an hour or 2 with a consistant kill rate and acolytes spawning around each 3.30 minutes or so?

edit: I mean, guns are fun and all, but they arent competative aside from a very select few of them.

 

Edited by SneakyErvin
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...