Disable Explosive self Knock Back.

[Electropuncher]

2 hours ago, Skyz72 said:

I'm asking to remove the knock back, not asking to negate the penalty (i've been talking of some alternatives) like making you fireing more slowly or making you unable to fire for the same time that the actual knock back animation takes to complete.

1) I'm lazy so I haven't read all of the thread.

2) Knockback is an appropriate penalty for shooting a rocket in your face. You don't like it? Use Nezha, Rhino, Revenant, or Primed Sure Footed.

[Teridax68]

On 2021-05-03 at 3:16 AM, Tiltskillet said:

Sure, but to be fair, in 2020 explosive weapons got -two- penalties.  (And a comparatively small buff to radius.)  Personally, I think stagger is the less significant penalty, just because there are a lot of ways to minimize it or ignore it entirely.   

It's funny though, I rarely see players ask for falloff penalties to be removed anymore.  But protests against stagger?  Still going strong.

This I think is pretty strong evidence that the problem isn't really with players merely asking for buffs, but genuinely a quality of life issue. If players really fully adhered to the "never nerf, only buff" mentality that so often dominates discussion in these spaces, they'd be asking to remove self-staggers and damage falloff, especially as the latter is, as you mentioned, arguably a far bigger and more frequent penalty than self-CC. However, players seem to either not know or not care about damage falloff, while being very conscious of self-staggers, so the argument that players just refuse any nerfs no matter what is inaccurate in this context, players seem to just dislike the nerfs here that negatively impact the flow of play. I personally dislike damage falloff for other reasons, along with certain strengths of some explosive weapons I think are unwarranted (I think most of them are too fast), but what you pointed out I think proves that the complaints against self-staggers come from an honest desire for better gameplay, contrary to some users' insinuations to the contrary.

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

If players really fully adhered to the "never nerf, only buff" mentality that so often dominates discussion in these spaces, they'd be asking to remove self-staggers and damage falloff, especially as the latter is, as you mentioned, arguably a far bigger and more frequent penalty than self-CC. However, players seem to either not know or not care about damage falloff, while being very conscious of self-staggers, 

I can tell you that personally I notice the falloff as well, I'd hazard a guess that anyone who actually used explosive radials before are very cognisant of the fact they got their damage output nerfed to pay for baby-proof mode.

And then there's the cadre of weapons that had no self-damage previously but got both stagger and falloff to castrate them utterly,

 

Thing is, that's functionally a mere damage nerf. Yes, we wanted more outgoing power for the risks rather than baby mode, but eventually enemy scaling would make you pull the trigger twice regardless, while the persistent aggravation of staggering is a whole new (and negative) influence unto itself.

In fact, people were/are more likely to cause staggers even when previously they were competent at not shooting rockets at their feet, in an effort to compensate for falloff - especially with the embiggened radius factored in too. What range was 'just' safe may no longer be safe, and you have to shoot in a more limited proximity to a target to yield the expected output, meaning less wiggle room to put the epicentre a bit further away to hit the enemy for full while not hitting yourself in the process...

[Teridax68]

2 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

I can tell you that personally I notice the falloff as well, I'd hazard a guess that anyone who actually used explosive radials before are very cognisant of the fact they got their damage output nerfed to pay for baby-proof mode.

And then there's the cadre of weapons that had no self-damage previously but got both stagger and falloff to castrate them utterly,

 

Thing is, that's functionally a mere damage nerf. Yes, we wanted more outgoing power for the risks rather than baby mode, but eventually enemy scaling would make you pull the trigger twice regardless, while the persistent aggravation of staggering is a whole new (and negative) influence unto itself.

In fact, people were/are more likely to cause staggers even when previously they were competent at not shooting rockets at their feet, in an effort to compensate for falloff - especially with the embiggened radius factored in too. What range was 'just' safe may no longer be safe, and you have to shoot in a more limited proximity to a target to yield the expected output, meaning less wiggle room to put the epicentre a bit further away to hit the enemy for full while not hitting yourself in the process...

If damage falloff is indeed noticeable to many people, then that merely reinforces my point. Players who notice self-staggers and damage falloff, yet only criticize the former and not the latter, clearly don't fall into the camp of people who crusade mindlessly against nerfs of any kind, because they're making a conscious choice to protest one nerf and not the other. I also disagree with the fact that people are more likely to stagger themselves, given that there are plenty more means of making oneself immune to staggers than there were to sufficiently mitigate the massive self-damage previously attached to explosives. Despite this, players still don't want self-staggers in the game, so for all the spiteful, pointlessly elitist mischaracterization of players wanting "baby mode", the simple truth is that the players asking to remove it just want the game to flow better.

Really, at this point I feel like this whole recurring debate has been framed wrong from the start: on one hand, your desire for self-damage to return, for there to be some sort of player punishment mechanic in the game, and for explosive weapons to be balanced are all valid, even if trying to reimpose a near-universally despised mechanic upon players who enjoy explosive weapons is not. On the other hand, while I believe it is justified to oppose the implementation of self-punishment on AoE as a general mechanic, and rebuke the people who try to foist their elitism on a community of players who couldn't care less, opposing the mere existence of self-damage and self-stagger under any form, even as an option, is wrong. There is room for the both of us to have our fun, if explosive weapons didn't generally have self-damage or self-stagger (and were balanced around that), but instead some specific weapons and mods had either or both: even if the Lenz had its old one-shot-level self-damage on its main explosion, for example, that would still almost certainly be fine, even beneficial to its flavor, because that explosion is so telegraphed that not moving out of it really would be a gameplay mistake on the player's part. A game in which each weapon in our arsenal had its mechanics designed more on a case-by-case basis, rather than forced to fit a template that doesn't work equally well for everything (e.g. self-punishment on the Zakti), would offer more diversity and flavor to our gameplay, and likely make balancing specific weapons easier.

[Tiltskillet]

3 hours ago, Teridax68 said:

This I think is pretty strong evidence that the problem isn't really with players merely asking for buffs, but genuinely a quality of life issue. If players really fully adhered to the "never nerf, only buff" mentality that so often dominates discussion in these spaces, they'd be asking to remove self-staggers and damage falloff, especially as the latter is, as you mentioned, arguably a far bigger and more frequent penalty than self-CC. However, players seem to either not know or not care about damage falloff, while being very conscious of self-staggers, so the argument that players just refuse any nerfs no matter what is inaccurate in this context, players seem to just dislike the nerfs here that negatively impact the flow of play. I personally dislike damage falloff for other reasons, along with certain strengths of some explosive weapons I think are unwarranted (I think most of them are too fast), but what you pointed out I think proves that the complaints against self-staggers come from an honest desire for better gameplay, contrary to some users' insinuations to the contrary.

I wouldn't care to generalize overmuch, but I'm sure this is true in a lot of cases.  In other cases it could be evidence that our damage relative to the content is often totally overwhelming despite fall-off, co-op missions are often completed in a few minutes regardless of what weaponry a specific tenno carries, and that a lot of players, especially new players, are oblivious or apathetic to the mechanic.   It is, after all, just a number, whereas staggers are visceral.

Which doesn't have to be a negative.  I -like- stagger mechanics for this reason, though I doubt that's a majority opinion.  I enjoy the interaction with the environment, I enjoy trying to make tactical adjustments.  And when I fail, I (mostly) laugh at getting knocked on my butt. 

[TheLexiConArtist]

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

I also disagree with the fact that people are more likely to stagger themselves, given that there are plenty more means of making oneself immune to staggers than there were to sufficiently mitigate the massive self-damage previously attached to explosives. Despite this, players still don't want self-staggers in the game, so for all the spiteful, pointlessly elitist mischaracterization of players wanting "baby mode", the simple truth is that the players asking to remove it just want the game to flow better.

To clarify: this is in reference to not using methods that circumvent the drawbacks entirely. That defeats the point of discussion being whether you can not need those (and not kill yourself previously). Self-damage invulnerability was abused the same way, it was just less accessible.

It is about flow, but it's still baby-mode to let people chew on rockets without repercussions. There's no 'elitism' about it. I never said people have to get good, merely that they can choose to if they enjoy the process and accept their responsibility. That isn't elitism, that's just differences in preference and playstyle. It is indeed childish to insist other playstyles be forced to fundamentally change or be removed to suit oneself, despite having plenty of other options available.

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

Really, at this point I feel like this whole recurring debate has been framed wrong from the start: on one hand, your desire for self-damage to return, for there to be some sort of player punishment mechanic in the game, and for explosive weapons to be balanced are all valid, even if trying to reimpose a near-universally despised mechanic upon players who enjoy explosive weapons is not.

If by 'universally despised' you mean 'vocal minority' then sure. Near-universally, players just used or didn't use it per their preferences without trying to force a change or, unfortunately, feeling empowered to defend its validity. Cognitive bias says the status quo is going to be less vocally defended than it is attacked.

1 hour ago, Teridax68 said:

On the other hand, while I believe it is justified to oppose the implementation of self-punishment on AoE as a general mechanic, and rebuke the people who try to foist their elitism on a community of players who couldn't care less, opposing the mere existence of self-damage and self-stagger under any form, even as an option, is wrong. There is room for the both of us to have our fun, if explosive weapons didn't generally have self-damage or self-stagger (and were balanced around that), but instead some specific weapons and mods had either or both: even if the Lenz had its old one-shot-level self-damage on its main explosion, for example, that would still almost certainly be fine, even beneficial to its flavor, because that explosion is so telegraphed that not moving out of it really would be a gameplay mistake on the player's part. A game in which each weapon in our arsenal had its mechanics designed more on a case-by-case basis, rather than forced to fit a template that doesn't work equally well for everything (e.g. self-punishment on the Zakti), would offer more diversity and flavor to our gameplay, and likely make balancing specific weapons easier.

We agree on this. That was a strong component of my arguments against the change: it was 10% of the gun arsenal at best that had any self-damage, and <4% if I remember correctly that had it without a grace factor (arm distance/being triggered/explosion delay) offsetting the immediate fatal mistake 'issue'. Alternatives existed and there was never anything in the game which forced using self-damage weapons without the player desiring it.

As I said up in the first section, it's about forcing out entire playstyles. High-risk explosive enthusiasts exist, who just don't enjoy baby-proofed weapons. The fun was in occasionally dropping yourself, and knowing that you can't just do that endlessly with no material risk. At the cost of 100% of these options for those in the minority who fully enjoyed them as they were, the opposite and (courtesy status quo) more vocal minority increased their options by 10%. That's just greed and selfishness.

There were improvements that could have been made to rebalance damage and take off some of the more objective 'unreasonables' like allies careening into your line of fire at the worst moment, but removing it entirely and nerfing damage via falloffs to compensate and adding the gameplay-interrupting yet risk-free self staggering was a catastrophically abysmal decision.

[Teridax68]

4 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

To clarify: this is in reference to not using methods that circumvent the drawbacks entirely. That defeats the point of discussion being whether you can not need those (and not kill yourself previously). Self-damage invulnerability was abused the same way, it was just less accessible.

It is about flow, but it's still baby-mode to let people chew on rockets without repercussions. There's no 'elitism' about it. I never said people have to get good, merely that they can choose to if they enjoy the process and accept their responsibility. That isn't elitism, that's just differences in preference and playstyle. It is indeed childish to insist other playstyles be forced to fundamentally change or be removed to suit oneself, despite having plenty of other options available.

Of course it's still elitism; you're still looking down on people who prefer not to play by the arbitrary terms you've set, and want to force a "choice" virtually nobody wants. It is not and should not be a "responsibility" to use a class of weapons, certainly not in a game that lets players use other alternatives to greater effect and with no repercussions (e.g. the Ignis Wraith). Players should get to choose whether or not the explosive weapon they use punishes them with self-staggers or self-damage, and that's a choice you don't seem to want to have in Warframe.

4 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

If by 'universally despised' you mean 'vocal minority' then sure. Near-universally, players just used or didn't use it per their preferences without trying to force a change or, unfortunately, feeling empowered to defend its validity. Cognitive bias says the status quo is going to be less vocally defended than it is attacked.

Putting aside how obvious a case of projection this is, you do realize this is a battle you've long lost, right? The "vocal minority" was vocal and large enough for DE to eventually capitulate and remove self-damage from explosive weapons altogether, even if they implemented self-staggers instead. A Warframe without self-damage is the status quo, and yet only a tiny handful of people keep asking for self-damage to return, usually while drawing vocal pushback from a far larger number of players against the idea.

4 minutes ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

We agree on this. That was a strong component of my arguments against the change: it was 10% of the gun arsenal at best that had any self-damage, and <4% if I remember correctly that had it without a grace factor (arm distance/being triggered/explosion delay) offsetting the immediate fatal mistake 'issue'. Alternatives existed and there was never anything in the game which forced using self-damage weapons without the player desiring it.

As I said up in the first section, it's about forcing out entire playstyles. High-risk explosive enthusiasts exist, who just don't enjoy baby-proofed weapons. The fun was in occasionally dropping yourself, and knowing that you can't just do that endlessly with no material risk. At the cost of 100% of these options for those in the minority who fully enjoyed them as they were, the opposite and (courtesy status quo) more vocal minority increased their options by 10%. That's just greed and selfishness.

There were improvements that could have been made to rebalance damage and take off some of the more objective 'unreasonables' like allies careening into your line of fire at the worst moment, but removing it entirely and nerfing damage via falloffs to compensate and adding the gameplay-interrupting yet risk-free self staggering was a catastrophically abysmal decision.

If we are in agreement, then why do you still insist on generalizing self-damage to an entire class of weapons? Why not just make some weapons, explosive or not, inflict self-damage? Why not also add a mod that enables self-damage or self-staggers on explosives? That way, players who want "baby proof" explosive gameplay, i.e. to use explosive weapons without having to deal with disproportionately irritating and flow-breaking punishment mechanics, would be able to do so, whereas "high risk enthusiasts" would be able to kill and/or stagger themselves to their heart's content. Everybody wins.

[TheLexiConArtist]

33 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Of course it's still elitism; you're still looking down on people who prefer not to play by the arbitrary terms you've set, and want to force a "choice" virtually nobody wants. It is not and should not be a "responsibility" to use a class of weapons, certainly not in a game that lets players use other alternatives to greater effect and with no repercussions (e.g. the Ignis Wraith). Players should get to choose whether or not the explosive weapon they use punishes them with self-staggers or self-damage, and that's a choice you don't seem to want to have in Warframe.

The responsibility is of shooting a weapon you know hurts yourself at a proximity where that applies. Nobody pulled that trigger but you, so you made the judgement that it was right to do so. This is not a novel concept. It's known cause and effect (the proverbial workman blaming his tools, much?) That's why the Cyanex specifically lost its self-damage prior to the big castration - arbitrary homing made it no longer player responsibility.

The choice existed already, it's called using a different weapon with similar mechanics but without the associated risk factor. There were plenty (there are fewer now since most of these were homogenised into the same unsatisfying system).

But please do continue to strawman.

33 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

Putting aside how obvious a case of projection this is, you do realize this is a battle you've long lost, right? The "vocal minority" was vocal and large enough for DE to eventually capitulate and remove self-damage from explosive weapons altogether, even if they implemented self-staggers instead. A Warframe without self-damage is the status quo, and yet only a tiny handful of people keep asking for self-damage to return, usually while drawing vocal pushback from a far larger number of players against the idea.

A bad change is a bad change, why should I stop pointing it out? All it consumes is my time in writing, even if the hope is vain that DE will overcome their chronic Reversion Anxiety one day this millennium so they can look at these design abortions and agree that they were a step backwards, that they should first go back and then try a new path instead of trying to duct-tape so many layers over the gaping wounds they make.

Every day I play Warframe, I look at my so-called explosive weapons of yore and realise that exactly zero of them are filling that niche any more. Why wouldn't I complain about that being stolen away because of people who couldn't stand not to use 10% of the arsenal that didn't suit them?

33 minutes ago, Teridax68 said:

If we are in agreement, then why do you still insist on generalizing self-damage to an entire class of weapons? Why not just make some weapons, explosive or not, inflict self-damage? Why not also add a mod that enables self-damage or self-staggers on explosives? That way, players who want "baby proof" explosive gameplay, i.e. to use explosive weapons without having to deal with disproportionately irritating and flow-breaking punishment mechanics, would be able to do so, whereas "high risk enthusiasts" would be able to kill and/or stagger themselves to their heart's content. Everybody wins.

Please explain to me where I stated that everything with a radial must have self-damage. Maybe some could have staggers where they were 'free' previously. I've said that in plenty of past discussions - a high-risk, mid-risk, low-risk and no-risk breakdown doesn't hurt anyone (even if 'low risk' is very arguable since I still assert that the stagger/knockdown is zero functional risk, just a meaningless control impediment).

There's just no reason not to return self-damage to the weapons which appropriately had it before and then look at the balance paradigms as a spectrum, making changes to reward or metering out risk accordingly. New weapons can come out with safety features, or no safety features and higher output potential, or no risk and commensurately lower output potential through falloff/smaller area/lower base damages.

There's definitely no excuse to have things like the Cedo's alt-fire staggering when its unpredictably wild bouncing decides it wants you. Is that new? I could swear I hadn't felt that before this last patch, but that might just be said unpredictability in action up to now.

[Teridax68]

3 hours ago, TheLexiConArtist said:

The responsibility is of shooting a weapon you know hurts yourself at a proximity where that applies. Nobody pulled that trigger but you, so you made the judgement that it was right to do so. This is not a novel concept. It's known cause and effect (the proverbial workman blaming his tools, much?) That's why the Cyanex specifically lost its self-damage prior to the big castration - arbitrary homing made it no longer player responsibility.

The choice existed already, it's called using a different weapon with similar mechanics but without the associated risk factor. There were plenty (there are fewer now since most of these were homogenised into the same unsatisfying system).

But please do continue to strawman.

I don't need to, you are openly fantasizing about "responsibility" over a video game mechanic that no longer even exists. Warframe and all of morality do not fall apart when I equip Primed Sure Footed and absolve myself of the "responsibility" of janking up my game when I use an explosive weapon, and I see no reason to abide by your gatekeeping of what should and shouldn't incur "responsibility". You are most welcome to inflict that upon yourself, but aren't entitled to force the same upon others.

Quote

A bad change is a bad change, why should I stop pointing it out? All it consumes is my time in writing, even if the hope is vain that DE will overcome their chronic Reversion Anxiety one day this millennium so they can look at these design abortions and agree that they were a step backwards, that they should first go back and then try a new path instead of trying to duct-tape so many layers over the gaping wounds they make.

Except we're not talking about whether or not removing self-damage across explosive weapons was a bad change (I don't think it was), we're talking about whether or not the people who pushed for it were a vocal minority. Clearly, they weren't, as there were far more people asking for self-damage to be removed than there are asking for it to be reintegrated. Your suggestion is unpopular, and while you can still continue to make it, you do not get to claim to represent a "silent majority" that is vocally against you.

Quote

Every day I play Warframe, I look at my so-called explosive weapons of yore and realise that exactly zero of them are filling that niche any more. Why wouldn't I complain about that being stolen away because of people who couldn't stand not to use 10% of the arsenal that didn't suit them?

Oh, I'm not saying you shouldn't complain about your gameplay getting taken away from you, because you're right: the gameplay you advocate of risking self-damage when getting caught in one's own weapon explosions no longer exists, and that does a disservice to the few players who genuinely enjoyed it. I am fully on your side when you say you want it back... right up until you start demanding it get forced down the throats of every other player who wants to play an explosive weapon without having to also incur self-damage. I think it is okay for some weapons to deal self-damage, and I think it is okay for players to be able to opt in to self-damage across a broader class of weapons via modding. I don't, however, think it's okay to make all explosives deal self-damage, and so long as you continue to advocate that, I and many more players will continue to oppose your proposal.

Quote

Please explain to me where I stated that everything with a radial must have self-damage. Maybe some could have staggers where they were 'free' previously. I've said that in plenty of past discussions - a high-risk, mid-risk, low-risk and no-risk breakdown doesn't hurt anyone (even if 'low risk' is very arguable since I still assert that the stagger/knockdown is zero functional risk, just a meaningless control impediment).

There's just no reason not to return self-damage to the weapons which appropriately had it before and then look at the balance paradigms as a spectrum, making changes to reward or metering out risk accordingly. New weapons can come out with safety features, or no safety features and higher output potential, or no risk and commensurately lower output potential through falloff/smaller area/lower base damages.

There's definitely no excuse to have things like the Cedo's alt-fire staggering when its unpredictably wild bouncing decides it wants you. Is that new? I could swear I hadn't felt that before this last patch, but that might just be said unpredictability in action up to now.

Your talk of "responsibility", generalized across all explosive weapons, strongly implies you want self-damage to return to being the default, an implication reinforced by your continued expressed desire to revert the changes to self-damage on AoE weapons. If you acknowledge that there is more than one way of balancing explosive weapons, and that self-damage or self-staggers need not apply to most of them (but can still exist), then I am with you, but otherwise I'm glad self-damage is no longer the default on explosives, and don't ever want it to be in the future either.

[(XBOX)HollowCube987]

On 2021-04-15 at 11:46 AM, Artekkor said:

There needs to be a drawback to AoE weapons, or they keep becoming meta for all the obvious reasons and DE have to keep nerfing them. Before knockback we had self-damage, so players kept oneshoting themselves when their teammate would decide to walk past them for a microsecond. So nobody used explosives, because why would you want to kill yourself 3 times a mission. And warframe players are not exactly known for good trigger discipline.

So DE removed self damage and replaced it with knockback which was a perfectly reasonable drawback, combined with humbled ammo capacity.

Now, we have primed sure footed of course. But at least an argument could be made that you have to pay big to get it (including upgrading the mod and formaing the warframe to fit it in).

Knockback MUST stay. The alternatives are worse and i know it by experience.

👆

[Andele3025]

On 2021-04-18 at 12:54 PM, Artekkor said:

I agree. Its exactly the same problem that was introduced with melee buffs. And DE intend to do something about that, so i have to wait and hope.

Carrying overwhelming power must come at a price.

Problem is, outside of outliers (which are there due to their own reasons not related to melee as a whole; gram prime was released with melee 2.998 but still buffed, some weapon types having a stance that has a obscene dps multiplier that is actually practical/is there both in practice and on paper like nikanas or in the case of glaives and gunblades having slightly too high heavy attacks and the nonsense 2x crit on heavy on mods) melee doesnt have overhwelming power, hell multiple guns outright compete with all but chakrams.
Its cleave has a notable damage loss (even if it doesnt feel like it mid mission since you're still up close and slicing), its generally limited to a 10m diameter that requires you to be in the middle of enemies, the "1 stagger per 2 hits" safety was purged and no, its attack speed isnt too high even if you for some reason combine Arcane Strike, PF and Berserk (instead of at most just 2 of them). Hell all of melee 2.9998 was essentially removing the top 60% of potential melee damage in exchange for bringing the floor to "clears starchart", which sadly did further lower the base "skill" in terms of having to actually care about the combo counter as far as buildup.

Guns in turn have a issue where they have multiple layers of rng ontop of the "skill" requirement of basic aim, shotguns getting a nerf by pellet count most people not putting on their equivalent of Primed Reach on them for the non-aoes AND ONTOP having lots of guns forgotten even yee back in the big gun rebalance because DE was both accounting for innate elements and using low end to median scores as what a good baseline is instead of what their full build performance was except for cases where rivens were a major factor (FOR SOME FORSAKEN REASON).

Tho this is off topic for the knockback bit which at most should just have what was noted yee prior, have Cautious Shot be 100% reduction by 2 degrees of stagger and some 50% duration reduction instead of RNG so that hard point blank is still punished a bit but accidents/edge cases arent.

[--Q--ualityContent]

Honestly I'm more annoyed that knockback is something on the smallest of things, like the panthera prime or the mutalist quanta ball, things which never had knockback and now got it.

[(XBOX)HollowCube987]

On 2021-05-03 at 8:16 PM, Skyz72 said:

I'm asking to remove the knock back, not asking to negate the penalty (i've been talking of some alternatives) like making you fireing more slowly or making you unable to fire for the same time that the actual knock back animation takes to complete

Oh, I understand your argument now.

I have to admit, while the Self Stagger is leagues better than sending yourself to the shadow realm, it is kind of annoying to be stuck in an animation after you backed up far enough to make the shot.

I think the only question would be what do we replace self stagger with? We would need a penalty that isn't as harsh and unforgiving as instant death, but is still something that's impactful enough on your gameplay to persuade you to avoid using explosives in close quarters.

[Skyz72]

Il y a 6 heures, (XBOX)HollowCube987 a dit :

Oh, I understand your argument now.

I have to admit, while the Self Stagger is leagues better than sending yourself to the shadow realm, it is kind of annoying to be stuck in an animation after you backed up far enough to make the shot.

I think the only question would be what do we replace self stagger with? We would need a penalty that isn't as harsh and unforgiving as instant death, but is still something that's impactful enough on your gameplay to persuade you to avoid using explosives in close quarters.

Exactly

[Vortex]

On 2021-04-15 at 12:46 PM, Artekkor said:

NO.

I don't know if you've been here during Tonkor meta, but NO. I've seen it before and i know what will happen. People will take tonkor / ogris / whatever, walk up to enemy forces point flank, put the barrel into their mouths and pull the trigger. That's exactly what happened when Tonkor was initially released as the only explosive with no self-damage. So DE had to nerf the thing multiple times.

There needs to be a drawback to AoE weapons, or they keep becoming meta for all the obvious reasons and DE have to keep nerfing them. Before knockback we had self-damage, so players kept oneshoting themselves when their teammate would decide to walk past them for a microsecond. So nobody used explosives, because why would you want to kill yourself 3 times a mission. And warframe players are not exactly known for good trigger discipline.

So DE removed self damage and replaced it with knockback which was a perfectly reasonable drawback, combined with humbled ammo capacity.

Now, we have primed sure footed of course. But at least an argument could be made that you have to pay big to get it (including upgrading the mod and formaing the warframe to fit it in).

Knockback MUST stay. The alternatives are worse and i know it by experience.
Now, to be fair, some weapons shouldn't have a knock back to them to begin with, but that's a different topic entirely.

I mean, more than 90% got the sure footed and i don't see that kind of spam like you say, instead i see tons of nuke frames.

This game changed a lot from the tonkor meta.