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

Warframe Rebalance // Armour/Health/Shields, Enemy Scaling, Status 3.0


bnuy

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Maggy said:

Currently with Warframe, there are no procs that are actually good enough on slow weapon's such as snipers to warrant every properly building them for status

DoT procs are good on slow fire rate high damage weapons, becasue they cause high DoT ticks and can spare a second shot.

16 hours ago, Maggy said:

Opticor: 2.0s charge-rate, 20.0% status chance, now for this example
we'll pretend Opticor has 34.0% status chance to match Boltor

Or...you just raise status chance.

16 hours ago, Maggy said:

As you can see the numbers are still not perfect, but this is absolutely a step in the right direction.

This is absoloutely not a step in the right direction, as in your example you nerfed Boltor, a weapon which is already inferior to Opticor, solely on the basis that it has higher fire rate.

16 hours ago, Maggy said:

Also, this. Entirely incorrect, even when stripping armour up to 90% (i use 90% as a general example because this is the highest amount you can get via weapon's alone with corrosive + heat, without extra abilities or armour strip functions) as explained in my post, you still need to deal 3x the raw damage to kill a heavy gunner compared to true damage, this is a massive issue that only becomes more drastic as levels scale. Level 200 this amount is increased to 4x, and so on.

Yes, because Corrosive was nerfed after countles complaints from clueless players and now has an absolutely unnecessary stack cap. Remember 1 year ago, when you could strip armor completely. Furtheremore, going from 95% to 90% can very much reduce eHP by a high numerical value, which is just another proof that eHP is a meaningless stat.

9 hours ago, Maggy said:

if they were to rework armour like my post suggests I'd expect to see Grineer units with ~80% of their total health pools as armour, meaning you're really rewarded for building to the weaknesses of it.

And right now you are not building for their weakness with an armor ignore build? The real problem is that status rework killed armor strip via Corrosive as well as brute force Gas builds and reduced the number of available options to to 1. All of this was a result of terribly founded feedback and whining from players to reduce enemy armor.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, ShortCat said:

DoT procs are good on slow fire rate high damage weapons, becasue they cause high DoT ticks and can spare a second shot.

Yes, they are just as effective per proc as faster weapons, the issue comes when you're comparing two weapons of differing fire-rates and even status values, this was a point of contention and we clearly just disagree on how it should function.

32 minutes ago, ShortCat said:

Or...you just raise status chance.

This runs into the issues I mentioned earlier of inflated status values as well as making all slow weapons that you want to be status viable to be around 100% or more base status so you can guarantee one proc per hit at least. This also keeps the issue of non-linear status proc scaling, which further increases the discrepancy between slow and high fire-rate weapons. (viral 100% bonus first proc 25% subsequent, corrosive 26% first proc strip, 6% subsequent)

32 minutes ago, ShortCat said:

Yes, because Corrosive was nerfed after countles complaints from clueless players and now has an absolutely unnecessary stack cap. Remember 1 year ago, when you could strip armor completely. Furtheremore, going from 95% to 90% can very much reduce eHP by a high numerical value, which is just another proof that eHP is a meaningless stat.

Corrosive was nerfed, but to begin with it never should have fully stripped armour and convert armour to health types. This before ran into the issue of your actual damage per hit dropping from when you had 99.9% armour strip to 100% by a significant amount because you now lose out on the corrosive bonus you had against armour. If corrosive were to be kept as it is with minimal changes it should simply be changed to 9.9% per stack. This along with armour scaling being removed would be a step in the right direction.

32 minutes ago, ShortCat said:

And right now you are not building for their weakness with an armor ignore build? The real problem is that status rework killed armor strip via Corrosive as well as brute force Gas builds and reduced the number of available options to to 1. All of this was a result of terribly founded feedback and whining from players to reduce enemy armor.

I am actually, the status rework did kill corrosive strip yeah, and nerfed gas damage quite a bit. I don't think they should have done what they did to either of those statuses, they should've simply removed armour scaling. This means the effectiveness increase you get from using slash against armour at all levels is now linear when compared to bonuses and damage outputs from running corrosive+heat strip or other such methods to attempt to kill enemies through armour. Even if they make corrosive strip more this issue remains present, it takes 30k damage from slash procs to kill a 100 heavy gunner (building for type by going slash to ignore armour), whereas the corpus tech even when using toxin to bypass it's special resistance type of shields, still takes over 2x the amount of damage that the heavy gunner does. Do you not see this as poor balance? I sure as heck do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ShortCat said:

This is absoloutely not a step in the right direction, as in your example you nerfed Boltor, a weapon which is already inferior to Opticor, solely on the basis that it has higher fire rate.

Forgot to comment on this part. Boltor is inferior to Opticor due to it being under-tuned, much as almost every single dated prime weapon is. DE has been creating more and more power creep, that's the reason Boltor Prime is weaker than Opticor, no other reason. Boltor Prime would need a decent buff to compare to Opticor, such as a base damage buff. Unmodded Opticor has double the sustained dps that Boltor Prime has. This can be addressed by buffing the base damage, crit stats, fire-rate, or some mish mash of them all. I'm of the opinion that just changing base damage would be the best route, as Boltor Prime is meant to be a status weapon, hence the 34% status, and not really crit reliant due to the 12%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bump

On 2021-04-12 at 12:56 AM, ShortCat said:

DoT procs are good on slow fire rate high damage weapons, becasue they cause high DoT ticks and can spare a second shot.

Or...you just raise status chance.

This is absoloutely not a step in the right direction, as in your example you nerfed Boltor, a weapon which is already inferior to Opticor, solely on the basis that it has higher fire rate.

Yes, because Corrosive was nerfed after countles complaints from clueless players and now has an absolutely unnecessary stack cap. Remember 1 year ago, when you could strip armor completely. Furtheremore, going from 95% to 90% can very much reduce eHP by a high numerical value, which is just another proof that eHP is a meaningless stat.

And right now you are not building for their weakness with an armor ignore build? The real problem is that status rework killed armor strip via Corrosive as well as brute force Gas builds and reduced the number of available options to to 1. All of this was a result of terribly founded feedback and whining from players to reduce enemy armor.

 

Also ShortCat you may be pleased to hear I'm dumb and went back and did some calculations I failed to do earlier, and as per the results of that obviously status efficacy will only affect debuff procs... It should never have been tacked on to the damage portion of procs, just the debuffing portion. The dps differences between weapons is equal, it's only when it comes to debuff procs that slower status weapons fall drastically behind.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, GREF_TM said:

Who cares about them, they are hot garbage and there's literally only one semi-decent weapon in the whole game that can benefit from them.

I'm not sure who you're quoting here and in what context, because I'm entirely with you, and my prior posts on here agree with the fact that those mods are poorly-designed band-aids that have contributed little to build diversity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What a nice thread. Thumps up for the OP for his zeal to stop the mandatory anti-armor meta. Especially regarding his explanation for the armor/eHP and how critical hits buff status procs.

But in my opinion the stated solutions are overly complicated, which have the tendency to collapse by itself. For example the efficacy system will probably face its first hardships with AoE weapons like the kuva bramma and fire rate mods.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

My opinion is being suppressed. Would you like you for me to go into detail? ok. Heres an example, lets use Kuva Nukor as the example weapo. So you use radiation, (with what is propsed) it kills the entire map for no reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, -Whire said:

My opinion is being suppressed. Would you like you for me to go into detail? ok. Heres an example, lets use Kuva Nukor as the example weapo. So you use radiation, (with what is propsed) it kills the entire map for no reason.

Nukor is overtuned and needs nerfs. This has been an issue since it was released. With these changes nukor would be getting a nerf to it's application rate (now applies debuff statuses, like radiation, at 0.5x efficacy) but it may still definitely be overtuned after this, and could be looked at for some nerfs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Every element here just seems waaaaay to overloaded. I mean I get you are trying to fix status but I do not think this is a good solution. Some ideas in here may be applicable however, adding all of this would add more unbalance and not really fix any of the actual problems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Updated shield change section, now better designed and I believe entirely negates all current issues with shields (shield can never compete with armour, shield-gating abuse).
Added a small picture showing Ferrite after my suggestions vs current Ferrite armour to be easier to understand.

bump?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this rework gets a lot off right but there is still a major flaw. Enemies can´t resist status so we still have to suffer trought hords off status imune enemies. 

I also think moving to status damage type off system instead off a number off procs system would be helthier for the game. Something like status power 10%. 2 examples:. damage 100 , fire rate 10 , status power 10%; 1000 damage ; fire rate off 1 ; 10% status power. Both weapon has the same status damage per second off 100 status damage per second. So this system has no inherent bias. 

The other advantage is you can indidualize enemies status resistences , for example 1 enemy could have 500 status hp taking 5 second to sufer full effect from previouly mentioned status status guns. An elite enemy could have 1500 status hp so it would take 15 seconds to get full effect. 

At last the system allows for the enemy element resitence to also apply to to elemental proc , for example an infested unit with 500 status hp would take 10 seconds off continous fire from a gun with 100 viral status damage per second to suffer full effect. 

How the effect off the proc would be calculated 

( 1 - (status hp - status damage ) / status hp ) * effect 

for example 

effect - For example viral effect 300% damage to health 

status hp - 1500 

status damage done acumulated  - 300

it would mean 

( 1 - (1500 - 300 )/ 1500) * 300% = 60% damage amplification 

an the game would show to 2 status procs for the player so he can gouge how much status he has pumped out. 
 

About the rest off the sugestions they are fine ( particular note to radiation and puncture I really like them ) and I also think it´s a interesting chage to compound elements ( 1 part off the mix determines 1 part off the proc the other part determines a diferent portion ). As far as turning armor into a "health"type Im fine with it too. kinda think the problem with all damage reworks so far is only armor matters and armor does not matter al all at the same time ( armor gives way to much eHP but can be ignored complely so the meta is do armor ignoring damage be it called serrated blade , 100 % armor strip or slalh procs ).

There another think I would like to raise is more on the warframe side , there should be a fundamental diference between the game play from armor heavy frames , shield have frames and armor frames. I would guess having healht restore on melee kill ( requires contact to prevent glaive and gunblade abuse , with a bonus for finishers of any kind , inaros passive could just be reworked to bonus to regen on melee kill). Shield already have their niche off outisde off combat regen. No idea how to implement armor regen. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cleaned up the health/armour/shield type resistances. Went through and converted them all into clean screenshots that are easily comparable to their current resistances, so you can see all the changes at a glance.

Tweaked cold to not have 7 projectiles, as repeatedly capping out cold with say a Kuva Nukor would cause significant GPU load. Increased main target damage and converted icicles to aoe damage instance. Slightly increased cold zone radius.

Updated impact to not be capped at 10 stacks. Now as long as you have procced impact you have a chance to force a Parazon Finisher from any direct damage instance, subsequent procs increase the finisher chance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I’m disappointed to see that few people have strawmanned (misrepresented your points) you or have entirely missed your point. Others have simply disagreed with you or have complained your suggestion will break the game/not solve anything without explaining why. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with most of your suggestions; I’ve always got the impression that Warframe’s damage system are over inflated due to the way armor and EHP works on enemies. 
 

Now for the status efficacy, I think it’s way simpler to buff/nerf the status chance of weapons in respect to solving the status proccing discrepancy between weapons with slow vs fast RoF. I can’t do math so I can’t give specific examples, but I think it wouldn’t hurt if let’s say Daikyu got a base status chance of over 100%. If buffing status chance to the extent that some weapons may potentially have base status of over 100% sounds scary, we can simply do the reverse and nerf the status chance of weapons with high RoF.

 

As for changing the status effects I agree with them for the most part, especially with removing the 10stack-cap design and replacing it with a mechanic that allows infinite scaling but with diminishing returns. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, UncleHanayama said:

I’m disappointed to see that few people have strawmanned (misrepresented your points) you or have entirely missed your point. Others have simply disagreed with you or have complained your suggestion will break the game/not solve anything without explaining why. 

Well, the thread has been evolving over time, fixing slight mistakes I had, like efficacy affecting damage procs early on, big mistake there. In general though many people have misunderstood, yeah, which is why I keep adding more in depth explanations and breakdowns, hoping they are finally able to understand. People like to say things are bad without actually understanding why the changes are necessary, most Warframe players don't have the knowledge to understand balance changes.
 

12 hours ago, UncleHanayama said:

I agree with most of your suggestions; I’ve always got the impression that Warframe’s damage system are over inflated due to the way armor and EHP works on enemies. 
 

Now for the status efficacy, I think it’s way simpler to buff/nerf the status chance of weapons in respect to solving the status proccing discrepancy between weapons with slow vs fast RoF. I can’t do math so I can’t give specific examples, but I think it wouldn’t hurt if let’s say Daikyu got a base status chance of over 100%. If buffing status chance to the extent that some weapons may potentially have base status of over 100% sounds scary, we can simply do the reverse and nerf the status chance of weapons with high RoF.

 

As for changing the status effects I agree with them for the most part, especially with removing the 10stack-cap design and replacing it with a mechanic that allows infinite scaling but with diminishing returns. 

Efficacy could be simplified into this, yeah, but I also dislike the idea of inflating status values to make them viable. It makes cross-comparisons between weapon types very difficult, and also greatly exaggerates the power of damage procs as well, it doesn't just fix the issue of debuff proc scaling.

If you were to give, say, Opticor, 200% status chance or more to allow it to keep up, well now the damage proc effectiveness on it goes WAY up, pushing it past any other weapon using damage procs. Damaging procs are already balanced off of a weapon's dps, so inflating status which allows them to proc those more means they become significantly stronger with damage procs too, as they proc them an incredible amount. Not to mention, it removes status as a "chance" application on slower weapons, moving them to proc on every single shot as it's above 100%.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, scam said:

Efficacy could be simplified into this, yeah, but I also dislike the idea of inflating status values to make them viable. It makes cross-comparisons between weapon types very difficult, and also greatly exaggerates the power of damage procs as well, it doesn't just fix the issue of debuff proc scaling.

Cross-comparing weapons on status chance and RoF alone isn't particularly difficult, as one has to just multiply RoF with status chance to see how many status effects they apply each second on average. Status efficacy would merely make this more complicated by adding in another factor, and causing status procs to not be consistent from one weapon to the other. Your own thread OP limits itself to an idealized comparison between weapons with 100% status chance for this very reason, which isn't a really solid assumption to make when virtually no weapon follows that ideal.

5 hours ago, scam said:

If you were to give, say, Opticor, 200% status chance or more to allow it to keep up, well now the damage proc effectiveness on it goes WAY up, pushing it past any other weapon using damage procs. Damaging procs are already balanced off of a weapon's dps, so inflating status which allows them to proc those more means they become significantly stronger with damage procs too, as they proc them an incredible amount. Not to mention, it removes status as a "chance" application on slower weapons, moving them to proc on every single shot as it's above 100%.

How exactly would status efficacy address this? Which benchmark are you setting for what counts as acceptable damage for a high-damage, low-RoF weapon to deal with a damage proc? If you're thinking of keeping those weapons on a low status chance, wouldn't reducing the power of their procs just neuter them even further, and make them even less viable for status? Arguing that status would no longer be a "chance" if raised is pretty bad math, since status is applied so frequently that even a sub-100% chance means those status procs appear reliably over hundreds or thousands of shots. Status isn't some kind of jackpot one hits once in a blue moon, and it shouldn't be treated as such.

The problem with damage procs, both in general and in your system, is that they include an additional scaling element that isn't included in other procs. As a result, status efficacy as a blanket stat would not be able to address this problem without either neutering other status effects on the same weapon, or requiring each status effect to have its own efficacy, which would be monstrously complicated. If you want to control damage procs on high-damage weapons, a cover-all solution could be to give the proc a fixed amount of damage scaling with the victim's level, which could then be affected by damage type mods and status efficacy. With this, damage procs would become consistent on the same level as other procs, which would make it easier to tune how good a weapon would be at applying status, whether through chance or efficacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Cross-comparing weapons on status chance and RoF alone isn't particularly difficult, as one has to just multiply RoF with status chance to see how many status effects they apply each second on average. Status efficacy would merely make this more complicated by adding in another factor, and causing status procs to not be consistent from one weapon to the other. Your own thread OP limits itself to an idealized comparison between weapons with 100% status chance for this very reason, which isn't a really solid assumption to make when virtually no weapon follows that ideal.

How exactly would status efficacy address this? Which benchmark are you setting for what counts as acceptable damage for a high-damage, low-RoF weapon to deal with a damage proc? If you're thinking of keeping those weapons on a low status chance, wouldn't reducing the power of their procs just neuter them even further, and make them even less viable for status? Arguing that status would no longer be a "chance" if raised is pretty bad math, since status is applied so frequently that even a sub-100% chance means those status procs appear reliably over hundreds or thousands of shots. Status isn't some kind of jackpot one hits once in a blue moon, and it shouldn't be treated as such.

The problem with damage procs, both in general and in your system, is that they include an additional scaling element that isn't included in other procs. As a result, status efficacy as a blanket stat would not be able to address this problem without either neutering other status effects on the same weapon, or requiring each status effect to have its own efficacy, which would be monstrously complicated. If you want to control damage procs on high-damage weapons, a cover-all solution could be to give the proc a fixed amount of damage scaling with the victim's level, which could then be affected by damage type mods and status efficacy. With this, damage procs would become consistent on the same level as other procs, which would make it easier to tune how good a weapon would be at applying status, whether through chance or efficacy.

I feel you're still misunderstanding, efficacy only works on debuff procs, not damage procs.
Damage procs are already perfectly balanced, if efficacy works on them it would break this balance, which is why it only affects debuff procs.


The reason I compared weapons of 100% status chance is for clarity sake, the comparison would function the exact same at any status chance, so long as the weapons being compared have an equal status chance they will apply debuff procs at the same rate with efficacy.

Debuff procs do not need their own efficacy, all of the debuff procs with efficacy implemented exactly as I've written would mean that all debuff procs (as they do now) would apply at the same rate, except that now lower and higher fire-rate weapons are balanced in their application speed if their status chance is the same.

Here is an except I feel you missed.

"In most games with status procs, unlike Warframe, just like how damage procs are a function of dps, debuff procs are as well, they're not applied as a "chance". In these games you deal status damage, so say with viral, you would apply viral damage every hit like normal, but this damage would also build towards a "proc", once the damage threshold is reached then a debuff proc is applied. This type of system balances debuff procs in the same way damage procs are balanced, a function of a weapon's total damage per second."

Debuff procs scale off of nothing except the amount of status procs you can get in any given time window, which is different to damage procs. Damage procs scale off of total damage per second, so regardless of fire-rate or raw damage, any weapons with an equal damage per second will get the same benefit out of damage procs. Debuff procs do not function like this, a higher firing weapon will apply status procs at an incredibly inflated rate when compared to a slower firing weapon.

Debuff Procs:

For the following calculations this is assuming equal DPS (which is irrelevant to application rate) and status chance on the weapons being compared. The status chance in question could be any number, so long as the weapons being compared are all equal.

  • 10.0 fire-rate
    • 10 applications per second
    • 1 second to fully stack any debuff proc
  • 5.0 fire-rate
    • 5 applications per second
    • 2 seconds to fully stack any debuff proc
  • 2.0 fire-rate
    • 2 applications per second
    • 5 seconds to fully stack any debuff proc

Damage Procs:

  • 10.0 fire-rate
  • 10 damage: 100 damage per second
    • 10 procs per second, 5 damage per tick
    • 50 damage per second from electricity procs
  • 5.0 fire-rate
  • 20 damage: 100 damage per second
    • 5 procs per second, 10 damage per tick
    • 50 damage per second from electricity procs
  • 2.0 fire-rate
  • 50 damage: 100 damage per second
    • 2 procs per second, 50 damage per tick
    • 50 damage per second from electricity procs

Do you see it now?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, scam said:

I feel you're still misunderstanding, efficacy only works on debuff procs, not damage procs.
Damage procs are already perfectly balanced, if efficacy works on them it would break this balance, which is why it only affects debuff procs.

Hold on, why are we dividing status procs now? How exactly is making a distinction between status effects that has never had to exist before, layering on a new stat, then mapping it along this separation going to make matters less convoluted? Also, how are damage procs "perfectly balanced" now?

22 minutes ago, scam said:

The reason I compared weapons of 100% status chance is for clarity sake, the comparison would function the exact same at any status chance, so long as the weapons being compared have an equal status chance they will apply debuff procs at the same rate with efficacy.

You're missing the point: by your own admission here and in the OP, your comparison breaks down the moment any two weapons cease to have the same status chance, which is going to happen very, very often in a game where status chance varies from weapon to weapon. Your new proposed stat makes it more difficult to compare status across weapons, not less.

22 minutes ago, scam said:

Here is an except I feel you missed.

"In most games with status procs, unlike Warframe, just like how damage procs are a function of dps, debuff procs are as well, they're not applied as a "chance". In these games you deal status damage, so say with viral, you would apply viral damage every hit like normal, but this damage would also build towards a "proc", once the damage threshold is reached then a debuff proc is applied. This type of system balances debuff procs in the same way damage procs are balanced, a function of a weapon's total damage per second."

Debuff procs scale off of nothing except the amount of status procs you can get in any given time window, which is different to damage procs. Damage procs scale off of total damage per second, so regardless of fire-rate or raw damage, any weapons with an equal damage per second will get the same benefit out of damage procs. Debuff procs do not function like this, a higher firing weapon will apply status procs at an incredibly inflated rate when compared to a slower firing weapon.

This is a completely wrong modelization of damage procs, each of which is individually based off the damage of a single shot, with the total damage output then factored through RoF and status chance. Two weapons dealing the same amount of status procs per second on average will not be equally balanced if one weapon's shots happen to deal more damage than the other. This is the very reason why you advocated against giving low-RoF weapons higher status chance.

22 minutes ago, scam said:

Debuff Procs:

For the following calculations this is assuming equal DPS (which is irrelevant to application rate) and status chance on the weapons being compared. The status chance in question could be any number, so long as the weapons being compared are all equal.

  • 10.0 fire-rate
    • 10 applications per second
    • 1 second to fully stack any debuff proc
  • 5.0 fire-rate
    • 5 applications per second
    • 2 seconds to fully stack any debuff proc
  • 2.0 fire-rate
    • 2 applications per second
    • 5 seconds to fully stack any debuff proc

Damage Procs:

  • 10.0 fire-rate
  • 10 damage: 100 damage per second
    • 10 procs per second, 5 damage per tick
    • 50 damage per second from electricity procs
  • 5.0 fire-rate
  • 20 damage: 100 damage per second
    • 5 procs per second, 10 damage per tick
    • 50 damage per second from electricity procs
  • 2.0 fire-rate
  • 50 damage: 100 damage per second
    • 2 procs per second, 50 damage per tick
    • 50 damage per second from electricity procs

Do you see it now?

What I see is that you're shifting goalposts every time you discuss either damage or status. Yes, in this hypothetical scenario where every weapon has the same status chance and DPS, they'd be dealing the same damage through procs... but they wouldn't be applying other status effects at the same rate, hence why you're presumably suggesting to add an additional stat to balance that. This is also assuming some ideal world where every weapon is calibrated to have the same status chance and DPS, which once again, is not the state of Warframe. Not only are you operating purely within an idealized set of variables that have little to do with the game at hand, the solution you're proposing goes directly against your stated goal of making the system you're working with less convoluted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Hold on, why are we dividing status procs now? How exactly is making a distinction between status effects that has never had to exist before, layering on a new stat, then mapping it along this separation going to make matters less convoluted? Also, how are damage procs "perfectly balanced" now?

Damage procs and debuff procs already exist, just there's no explicit distinction in the game. The reason I am adding a distinction is to properly balance the effectiveness of debuffs, much like how the effectiveness of damage procs is balanced.

I never said it is making it less convoluted, it's simply balancing it. When you're comparing the effectiveness of having a damage proc on a weapon, you're going to compare without any random variables added in. Having different status chances obviously means one will proc more status, which means it will be more effective with damage procs, to have a fair and even comparison you use two weapons with equal DPS. Damage procs are perfectly balanced now, I'm not saying every damaging status proc is balanced, there are bad damage procs and good damage procs. My point is simply that two weapons using the same damaging status proc, so long as their DPS and status chances are equal, they will have the same effectiveness from procs. I know weapons have wildly varying status chances and DPS values, you're still being silly and missing everything I'm explaining.

Fire-rate, damage per shot, multishot, crit chance, crit damage, status procs, these all work to further a weapon's DPS. Two weapons can have wildly different values for all of these, but so long as their DPS falls within the same range they are equally effective at dealing with enemies, before considering damage types and the rest. As you can see from my previous reply, assuming two weapons have equal DPS (regardless of means to achieve this DPS, be that raw damage, high crit, etc) they will have the same effectiveness from damaging procs.

In comparisons, you remove worthless variables that work to obfuscate your comparisons and results. This is why I am equalizing the DPS for damage proc comparisons, as obviously a weapon with lower DPS will deal less damage from damaging procs. The same goes for debuff procs, except for these, they're solely a function of status rate, meaning even if a weapon has an equal status chance, the fire-rate can prevent the weapon from having any proper effectiveness with debuff procs, where it has the same effectiveness with damage procs. This divide should not exist for debuff procs, it doesn't for DPS procs, it doesn't make sense to have a divide for debuff procs. This arbitrarily shoe-horns you into using only damage procs on slow firing weapons, as debuff procs are much less effective in comparison.

Fire-rate does not affect how good damage procs are, two weapons can have vastly different fire-rates but still be equally as effective with damage procs.
Fire-rate should not affect how good debuff procs are, they should simply be balanced around status chance.

22 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

You're missing the point: by your own admission here and in the OP, your comparison breaks down the moment any two weapons cease to have the same status chance, which is going to happen very, very often in a game where status chance varies from weapon to weapon. Your new proposed stat makes it more difficult to compare status across weapons, not less.

It doesn't break down, it is simply not a fair comparison. That is like saying two weapons with even status chances but wildly different DPS values the damage proc effectiveness comparison breaks down, well you're now comparing two things that are no longer evenly balanced, of course it will not be an even comparison.

24 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

This is a completely wrong modelization of damage procs, each of which is individually based off the damage of a single shot, with the total damage output then factored through RoF and status chance. Two weapons dealing the same amount of status procs per second on average will not be equally balanced if one weapon's shots happen to deal more damage than the other. This is the very reason why you advocated against giving low-RoF weapons higher status chance.

The reason I say just inflating status values is bad, is because that directly affects how good the weapon is with damage procs as well. Damage procs as I've explained are already balanced, debuff procs are not. If we increase status chance, now these weapons are randomly becoming dozens of times stronger for damage procs, while still having the damage proc effectiveness of them drastically higher than the debuff proc effectiveness, which doesn't address the issue and just adds more imbalance.

26 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

What I see is that you're shifting goalposts every time you discuss either damage or status. Yes, in this hypothetical scenario where every weapon has the same status chance and DPS, they'd be dealing the same damage through procs... but they wouldn't be applying other status effects at the same rate, hence why you're presumably suggesting to add an additional stat to balance that. This is also assuming some ideal world where every weapon is calibrated to have the same status chance and DPS, which once again, is not the state of Warframe. Not only are you operating purely within an idealized set of variables that have little to do with the game at hand, the solution you're proposing goes directly against your stated goal of making the system you're working with less convoluted.

I am not saying they will all have the same stats, I know weapon stats will vary wildly, but it's apples to oranges. Obviously if a weapon has a lower status chance it will have a different status application rate, and in reality this application rate should be lower, as it has less status. If you disagree with this, then I'm not sure what else to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scam said:

Damage procs and debuff procs already exist, just there's no explicit distinction in the game. The reason I am adding a distinction is to properly balance the effectiveness of debuffs, much like how the effectiveness of damage procs is balanced.

I never said it is making it less convoluted, it's simply balancing it.

This is untrue:

On 2021-04-11 at 5:44 PM, scam said:

This entire rework basically pushes towards two things, making procs less convoluted across the board, and ensuring that two weapons of differing fire-rates, but with an equal status chance, will have differing frequencies of application, but effectively similar results over time.

On 2021-04-11 at 6:09 PM, scam said:

If you read my entire post, I am making everything much less convoluted.

You very clearly want to claim that your proposal makes the game less convoluted. It doesn't. You are drawing a division where none exists, as currently status is status whether it's damage or debuffs, and are doing so purely to shoehorn in this new stat that only balances some of these procs, on the assumption that the others are balanced (they're not). This also assumes your new debuff status effects are equally balanced among one another, which is a bold assumption to make given how Warframe has failed so far to balance its status effects after three iterations.

1 hour ago, scam said:

When you're comparing the effectiveness of having a damage proc on a weapon, you're going to compare without any random variables added in. Having different status chances obviously means one will proc more status, which means it will be more effective with damage procs, to have a fair and even comparison you use two weapons with equal DPS. Damage procs are perfectly balanced now, I'm not saying every damaging status proc is balanced, there are bad damage procs and good damage procs. My point is simply that two weapons using the same damaging status proc, so long as their DPS and status chances are equal, they will have the same effectiveness from procs. I know weapons have wildly varying status chances and DPS values, you're still being silly and missing everything I'm explaining.

Hold on, so are you or are you not including other factors here? Because first you talk about comparing "without any random variables added in", and immediately after you follow up by establishing a situation with very specifically tweaked variables just to point out that one aspect of what's being discussed (the DPS of damage procs) is the same, ignoring the fact that your lopsided comparison a) relies on a state of the game that presently does not exist, and would require even more significant work to achieve, and b) breaks every other status effect, for which you need to add an extra layer of complication to fix. I'd rather just apply Occam's Razor and not go for the solution that creates more potential complications than it addresses.

1 hour ago, scam said:

Fire-rate, damage per shot, multishot, crit chance, crit damage, status procs, these all work to further a weapon's DPS. Two weapons can have wildly different values for all of these, but so long as their DPS falls within the same range they are equally effective at dealing with enemies, before considering damage types and the rest. As you can see from my previous reply, assuming two weapons have equal DPS (regardless of means to achieve this DPS, be that raw damage, high crit, etc) they will have the same effectiveness from damaging procs.

This is probably a good time to recall that the alternative solution I proposed, which you visibly glossed over completely, was to base damage procs off of a static amount scaling with the victim's level, which would allow status efficacy to affect all status equally without ever having to factor DPS. The problem with your process here is that it is both stilted and excessively reductive, as you are manipulating numbers to such an unrealistic extent, and coming to such a deliberately incomplete conclusion, that it really doesn't inform the state of status in the game, nor even the result of your proposed status rework. The fact that your comparisons rely exclusively on unrealistic scenarios should probably give an idea of how brittle what you're suggesting really is.

1 hour ago, scam said:

In comparisons, you remove worthless variables that work to obfuscate your comparisons and results. This is why I am equalizing the DPS for damage proc comparisons, as obviously a weapon with lower DPS will deal less damage from damaging procs. The same goes for debuff procs, except for these, they're solely a function of status rate, meaning even if a weapon has an equal status chance, the fire-rate can prevent the weapon from having any proper effectiveness with debuff procs, where it has the same effectiveness with damage procs. This divide should not exist for debuff procs, it doesn't for DPS procs, it doesn't make sense to have a divide for debuff procs. This arbitrarily shoe-horns you into using only damage procs on slow firing weapons, as debuff procs are much less effective in comparison.

This statement is completely divorced from how status procs work in-game, because low-status weapons do not get built for status unless they can be made to reliably apply key status effects, e.g. through certain melee stances or forced Impact procs. Building for status in practice is not this game of numbers where players determine whether a weapon's high damage justifies using it for status despite a low chance, it's a simple matter of seeing how much status a weapon has, and either building exclusively for it or not at all. I fail to see how your proposal would meaningfully change this either, by the way.

1 hour ago, scam said:

Fire-rate does not affect how good damage procs are, two weapons can have vastly different fire-rates but still be equally as effective with damage procs.

Of course fire rate affects how good damage procs are, they let you apply more of them. You're just implicitly counterbalancing this by assuming that the high-RoF weapon has a lower damage per shot.

1 hour ago, scam said:

Fire-rate should not affect how good debuff procs are, they should simply be balanced around status chance.

Great, then just give lower weapons higher status chance. Your status efficacy stat could thereby apply just as well to damage procs and not debuff procs as it could the opposite. Better yet, you could just make damage and debuff procs work the same way, and save yourself the headache of implementing a stat that only works for some of them.

1 hour ago, scam said:

It doesn't break down, it is simply not a fair comparison. That is like saying two weapons with even status chances but wildly different DPS values the damage proc effectiveness comparison breaks down, well you're now comparing two things that are no longer evenly balanced, of course it will not be an even comparison.

That comparison would break down if I were to say the two weapons made equal use of status, which I'm not. The comparison is "unfair" only insofar as it highlights just how much you need to change variables just to achieve even partial success within the bounds you yourself have set. You are working with a system that has its fair share of complications, and responding by adding in even more complications that do not even fully account for the totality of issues currently affecting said system.

1 hour ago, scam said:

The reason I say just inflating status values is bad, is because that directly affects how good the weapon is with damage procs as well. Damage procs as I've explained are already balanced, debuff procs are not. If we increase status chance, now these weapons are randomly becoming dozens of times stronger for damage procs, while still having the damage proc effectiveness of them drastically higher than the debuff proc effectiveness, which doesn't address the issue and just adds more imbalance.

The exact converse argument can be said for balancing weapons around DPS rather than status output per second, which is what you're suggesting now as a means of equalizing damage procs. The simpler solution would be to make damage and debuff procs work in the same way, and at that point you could balance exclusively off of fire rate and status chance without having to worry about damage procs going overboard. Alternatively, you could simply accept the fact that damage and debuff procs scale off of slightly different stats, and suggest a rebalance to weapons such that some may be better-suited for damage procs, and others for status procs, without introducing an extra stat.

1 hour ago, scam said:

I am not saying they will all have the same stats, I know weapon stats will vary wildly, but it's apples to oranges. Obviously if a weapon has a lower status chance it will have a different status application rate, and in reality this application rate should be lower, as it has less status. If you disagree with this, then I'm not sure what else to say.

Differences across the same set of scalar variables is just about as diametrically opposite to "apples and oranges" as one gets. At the end of the day, you have simply chosen to assume that damage status is balanced on weapons and that all other status effects should be balanced via some additional stats, a series of assumptions that is as unfounded as it is easy to reverse. I have not only pointed this out to you, but suggested simpler solutions than would address the problem at hand without having to resort to the degree of complication I have criticized in your proposal. You don't have to take these suggestions, but to refuse to even acknowledge the flaws in your concept after they've been pointed out to you is generally not how you go about implementing a successful change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

snip

I am only going to reply to two small parts of this, because you're misunderstanding to me an astounding degree. Over-all my rework removes lots of convoluted stuff, yes I add in status efficacy, but only as a means to balance debuffs as I said.

I am not suggesting they rebalance weapons at all, this would effectively balance most weapons without needing to change stats, however they could tweak some things after. At no point do I say they would need to make every weapon equal status, or equal DPS. I am simply explaining, in a properly balanced game, weapons of equal DPS are equally powerful, regardless of their means to achieve this. Status weapons use status procs to improve their DPS, this is the whole point of having status procs, to further your goal of killing enemies.

Someone said earlier it's sad how people are misunderstanding/straw-manning, and now after our discussion today I can say I don't care to continue our discourse as you're one of the main offenders they were referring to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, scam said:

I am only going to reply to two small parts of this, because you're misunderstanding to me an astounding degree. Over-all my rework removes lots of convoluted stuff, yes I add in status efficacy, but only as a means to balance debuffs as I said.

Debuffs you yourself have implemented which are imbalanced by the very mechanisms I described. You are coming up with a convoluted mechanic to address another convoluted mechanic, both of which you have complete creative control over in your own thread.

Quote

I am not suggesting they rebalance weapons at all, this would effectively balance most weapons without needing to change stats, however they could tweak some things after. At no point do I say they would need to make every weapon equal status, or equal DPS. I am simply explaining, in a properly balanced game, weapons of equal DPS are equally powerful, regardless of their means to achieve this. Status weapons use status procs to improve their DPS, this is the whole point of having status procs, to further your goal of killing enemies.

But as the very existence of status chance demonstrates, weapons of equal DPS are not equally powerful. If the only purpose of status procs is to improve DPS, you may as well get rid of debuff procs altogether, or just ditch Status.

Quote

Someone said earlier it's sad how people are misunderstanding/straw-manning, and now after our discussion today I can say I don't care to continue our discourse as you're one of the main offenders they were referring to.

Playing the victim doesn't really give you license to dismiss valid criticism. Putting aside how you don't get to say who that person was referring to (that person in fact criticizes status efficacy as well, as have many others), a look through this thread should show that I have expressed support towards the general intent of your suggestions, while expressing a measured critique of some of your proposed changes. Even that was apparently too much nuance to ask for, because your response to that, and to other fair criticisms from others, has been to react incredibly defensively, ignoring the feedback given to you while accusing people of either not listening to you or strawmanning you. You have been the foremost in your own thread to misunderstand and strawman others, and seem to be under the impression that you can act like you're being persecuted just because some people take some issue with some part of your wall of text, if only so that you don't get to actually listen to what they have to say. That's not how it works. You're not after any sort of exchange of ideas here, you're just after validation, as the last few strings of desperate self-bumps should have been enough to indicate. Don't pretend otherwise if you have no intention of actually listening to what anyone else has to say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

×
×
  • Create New...