Melee Nerf Concern

[vegetosayajin]

3 minutes ago, Krankbert said:

Why? Why would the weaker option still be preferable?

Weaker version then now. Yes even if it's 2-3 times weaker then now it will still be better then everything else.
Also - ease of use, modding, aoe(range and hitting multiple targets compared to single targets primaries), acquisition ... maybe more?
 

[Loza03]

2 minutes ago, vegetosayajin said:

Then people will move to the next thing that can handle lv9k+ and it will still be only one meta build.
That won't make primaries more viable even if they put the same scaling mods on them because
1. it will create the same thing
2. they are still mostly single target weapons
Your solution doesn't fix anything, it creates one broken meta after the previous broken meta.

But changing how scaling mods work (i.e. nerfing them) would be a major step towards fixing one of the bigger individual problems. Which is that the amount of damage melee deals is disproportionate. And more to the point, once melee and primaries are closer in output, you can balance enemies that much easier because you have a better idea of how much damage a player is dealing. Balance how much damage abilities deal so they're all in line with each other, and now there's an actual baseline. That makes reworking enemy EHP feasible, which in turn facilitates reworking damage types and status effects.

Everything's linked together. What I was suggesting was never a solution for the whole game, and I was never arguing that it was. There is no single solution, because there is no single problem. There's a whole bunch of problems, and sitting around arguing one solution is never going to work, unless that's something unfeasibly drastic like a complete game overhaul or sequel.  But that doesn't mean it's not reasonable to point out one of those bigger problems like it being very easy to exploit and manipulate the system so an extremely powerful conditional-activation mod can be active all the time, allowing a disproportionate amount of power.

[Krankbert]

vor 6 Minuten schrieb vegetosayajin:

Weaker version then now. Yes even if it's 2-3 times weaker then now it will still be better then everything else.
Also - ease of use, modding, aoe(range and hitting multiple targets compared to single targets primaries), acquisition ... maybe more?
 

Well, then you nerf it more. I don't know why "nerf it until its as good as the other options" is such a hard concept to grasp for some people. It's always "after the nerf it will be unusable" or "after the nerf it will still be better so the nerf changes nothing" - the important thing is that no nerf can solve anything because then there would be a reason to nerf something, and we can't have that, can we? 

[vegetosayajin]

1 minute ago, Krankbert said:

Well, then you nerf it more. That's really not a hard concept.

Then it no longer becomes nerfing it becomes "might as well delete it".
For the longest time most glaives were in that category until they changed the mechanic and now they are "meta".

[Krankbert]

vor 1 Minute schrieb vegetosayajin:

Then it no longer becomes nerfing it becomes "might as well delete it".
For the longest time most glaives were in that category until they changed the mechanic and now they are "meta".

I added someting to my post in an Edit, and I'm so glad that you didn't see it before you responded.

vor 4 Minuten schrieb Krankbert:

. I don't know why "nerf it until its as good as the other options" is such a hard concept to grasp for some people. It's always "after the nerf it will be unusable" or "after the nerf it will still be better so the nerf changes nothing" - the important thing is that no nerf can solve anything because then there would be a reason to nerf something, and we can't have that, can we? 

 

[vegetosayajin]

5 minutes ago, Krankbert said:

Well, then you nerf it more. I don't know why "nerf it until its as good as the other options" is such a hard concept to grasp for some people. It's always "after the nerf it will be unusable" or "after the nerf it will still be better so the nerf changes nothing" - the important thing is that no nerf can solve anything because then there would be a reason to nerf something, and we can't have that, can we? 

ok answer me this questions - tangible reason why melee needs to be nerfed? And I will say again - needs.
And why don't go the other way - buff the other things so they can compete?
And I mean a real reason. Is there something in the game that literally is broken by melee?
Boss fight, mission, anything?

[Krankbert]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb vegetosayajin:

ok answer me this questions - tangible reason why melee needs to be nerfed? And I will say again - needs.

It's vastly better than the other options.

vor 4 Minuten schrieb vegetosayajin:

And why don't go the other way - buff the other things so they can compete?

Do you mean to tell me that you're arguing against planned changes and you have absolute no clue whatsoever what those changes are?

vor 4 Minuten schrieb vegetosayajin:

And I mean a real reason. Is there something in the game that literally is broken by melee?
Boss fight, mission, anything?

Balancing is a real reason. It makes for more diverse gameplay options and a better game. This isn't up for discussion.

[SheikaVoid]

Just now, vegetosayajin said:

ok answer me this questions - tangible reason why melee needs to be nerfed? And I will say again - needs.
And why don't go the other way - buff the other things so they can compete?
And I mean a real reason. Is there something in the game that literally is broken by melee?
Boss fight, mission, anything?

Literally every mission, stances make it possible to complete missions without pressing the W key.

[TheLordOmega2]

Here's what DE should do:

• Buff all guns across the board, both yours and the enemy, to make things more deadly
• Leave melee untouched
• Add new, interesting mechanics (perfect reloads, anyone?) to make guns more fun

Here's what DE will probably do:

• Nuke melee into a slow, unusable mess
• Put a few bandaid mods on guns with obscure incompatibilities
• Leave the gun stats as-is and call it good enough

[vegetosayajin]

Just now, Krankbert said:

Do you mean to tell me that you're arguing against planned changes and you have absolute no clue whatsoever what those changes are?

Again look at the whole conversation, I have an idea what they will be and they will not be enough.
 

[bad4youLT]

Melee needs a nerf

Enemies need scaling cap

And guns don't need no buffs

 

Change my mind 

[Krankbert]

vor 1 Minute schrieb vegetosayajin:

Again look at the whole conversation, I have an idea what they will be and they will not be enough.
 

Okay. So when you asked me why they don't make the other options better, that wasn't because you didn't know that that's exactly what's planned? You actually knew that that is exactly what's planned and were deliberately lying about it because it would help your point if it wasn't so?

[SheikaVoid]

Just now, bad4youLT said:

Melee needs a nerf

Enemies need scaling cap

And guns don't need no buffs

 

Change my mind 

Yeah, they don't need no buffs.

[(XBOX)GearsMatrix301]

37 minutes ago, SyberWolfe said:

Well, yes. I know that. You re-stated what I was trying to say. I am sorry if what I said did not come off as such. Apologies.  Melee has been buffed and nerfed more times than primaries and secondaries. It is a perpetual cycle that won't end. That's why I said they needed to take a long, reaponsible look at the weapons system and figure out the core problem.

The core problem is that melee is perfectly fine where it is and guns need attention.

[vegetosayajin]

Just now, Krankbert said:

Okay. So when you asked me why they don't make the other options better, that wasn't because you didn't know that that's exactly what's planned? You actually knew that that is exactly what's planned and were deliberately lying about it because it would help your point if it wasn't so?

My point is that nerfing or buffing mods is not enough, and I gave examples for what will be a good direction. They did it before , they can do it again, they are not doing it now.
 

[Krankbert]

vor 4 Minuten schrieb vegetosayajin:

My point is that nerfing or buffing mods is not enough, and I gave examples for what will be a good direction. They did it before , they can do it again, they are not doing it now.
 

First of all you have no clue whether nerfing or buffing mods will be enough because how could you. You don't know what exactly they're going to do.

Second I'm now curious. When you asked me why they weren't making the other options better, did you or did you not know that that's what DE is planning to do?

[(NSW)Greybones]

12 minutes ago, SheikaVoid said:

Literally every mission, stances make it possible to complete missions without pressing the W key.

Technically it comes down to how guaranteed success a player wants a mission to be.

Most players mod for as risk-averse as possible, since to fail a mission is to slow down the grind (and the community keeps saying The Grind Is Everything). At the moment a player chooses; threat of failure, or ease of completion. For most, the choice is obvious. Break the game in pursuit of the grind.

Although some players just like seeing enemies become particles and big numbers pop up. It can be pretty cool and fun at times

What gets me though is that some of those same players who avoid risk like the plague are also advocating for changes to slow the grind down.

Is there some sort of idea that people should be engaging in the combat and content more?

[Krankbert]

vor 1 Minute schrieb (NSW)Greybones:

At the moment a player chooses; threat of failure, or ease of completion.

I really don't think they do.

[SheikaVoid]

Just now, Krankbert said:

First of all you have no clue whether nerfing or buffing mods will be enough because how could you. You don't know what exactly they're going to do.

Second I'm now curious. When you asked me why they weren't making the other options better, did you or did you not know that that's what DE is planning to do?

DE's adding mods, that's a band-aid fix.

[vegetosayajin]

1 minute ago, Krankbert said:

No, I'm really curious. When you asked me why they weren't making the other options better, did you or did you not know that that's what DE is planning to do?

Giving a damage boost or even a full CO/BR won't make primaries or secondaries compete on equal ground - it will make some of them good, but not most of them. They will still be mostly single target weapons with ammo and reload times. If I take all this into account this is not buffing to make them viable with only mods. If you don't understand that point your questions have no meaning.

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 minute ago, Krankbert said:

I really don't think they do.

What’s an alternative? I edited my post to acknowledge people who have fun being demi-gods, but I’m curious about other approaches

[Krankbert]

vor 1 Minute schrieb vegetosayajin:

 If you don't understand that point your questions have no meaning.

Believe me, I understand perfectly well. You knew all along they'd make the other options better, you lied about it hoping that I don't, you got caught, you're now trying to weasel out of it. Your only actual opinion is that you think the nerf will get your toy taken away, and you don't want that. How am I doing? Do I understand?

[Krankbert]

vor 7 Minuten schrieb (NSW)Greybones:

What’s an alternative? I edited my post to acknowledge people who have fun being demi-gods, but I’m curious about other approaches

The way your post is written, you're not talking about what you think should be, you're talking about what is. And people making a choice between chance of failure and pretty much anything else is not a thing that's currently happening in this game. When was the last time you failed a mission? When was the last time you failed because your build was too risky and not because you were horsing around and forgot to actually capture the capture target, or some rando one-shot a defense target under radiation, or some other such nonsense? Because I honestly couldn't answer that. That's a whole different problem.

[(NSW)Greybones]

1 hour ago, (NSW)Greybones said:

Usually I work with elemental resistances and armour reducing abilities before adding strict damage mods and multi shot. If I work around resistances first, it means I have less times where one-weapon-suits-all 👍 .

Recently had time to do 2 levels of Orokin sortie with a non-potatoed Ash and no survival mods (I had Streamline, Seeking Shuriken, Patagium, Streamlined Form, and that holster speed Aura). Combined with my Argonak built for killing Corpus, my Lex Prime built for dealing with armor, my Heat Dagger built for one-on-one fights, and using my abilities and the stage traps well, I had good fights where I wasn’t immediately killed (though I could not afford to be careless), they didn’t immediately die, and only a handful of enemies were pretty crunchy (in a way that felt correct).

I could sort of use my Argonak to fight armour and sort of use my Lex against shields, and sort of kill groups with my melee (very high-risk/high-reward, though), but for the most part I had to use the right tool for the right situation. And they weren’t one-shot nor were they sponges.

 🤔 I did fail the interception once, and the second time was (correction) my last tower and a lancer was just about to capture it, and I wouldn’t be able to recapture it in time

edit: I tried viral on my Argonak, and it was so much harder to take down the shields. Worked great for smaller Grineer and okay for the large ones, but wow, those shields. Ended up going with electricity instead

Sorry for the chunky response, @Krankbert. I’m on my phone and it’s nigh impossible to nicely do what I had in mind regarding formatting (I feel context is important for this response).

I’ve underlined the part where I failed. And that was just in that sortie

[vegetosayajin]

Just now, Krankbert said:

Believe me, I understand perfectly well. You knew all along they'd make the other options better, you lied about it hoping that I don't, you got caught, you're now trying to weasel out of it. Your only actual opinion is that you think the nerf will get your toy taken away, and you don't want that. How am I doing? Do I understand?

No "better" is your words and hopes, not mine, apparently you don't understand. And no they will not take my "toy" away because I play and love all weapons, but you are intentionally avoiding logic, because it suits your point. In a way I'm sad that they chose this path because it will lead to nowhere.
So if you point is to just be contrarian for the sake of it, go ahead.