I know how to solve the aoe weapon meta!

[XAN3MK]

2 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

Melee also already does less damage to additional targets hit, and it's a significant drop per target that is noticeable on non-meta weapons.

As for aoe meta, it makes no real sense to complain about x meta. The E in META is about effectiveness. Regardless, there is going to be a weapon type that is the most effective, and aoe isn't it for all content types. It isn't any different to how melee is only effective compared to guns in extended endless missions, but everywhere else it's specific guns or aoe damage.

If you deleted aoe ranged damage from the game [including abilities], most weapons would still be ignored and a meta would still exist. The cycle would just restart and going from complaints over aoe meta, to complaints over the new x meta.

The only relevant matter is whether alternate options are actually viable. It doesn't matter if K-Bramma kills a horde quicker than K-Karak, what matters is if K-Karak is sufficient enough to clear content in a reasonable manner. If the answer was no, nerfing K-Bramma wouldn't change that to a yes.

DE has even been adjusting content to where aoe vs single target ends up not mattering with some content only having one relevant enemy. There's a lot of content that run on a timer, with no meaningful reward for killing enemies and some recent mission types and events aoe damage wasn't relevant.

This answer is hitting the nail on the head - and this same answer could be applied to all and every thread of similar ilk that pops up despite the subject being beaten to death over and over again, yet coming to the same conclusion. I'll even bold out the relevant part:

The only relevant matter is whether alternate options are actually viable. It doesn't matter if K-Bramma kills a horde quicker than K-Karak, what matters is if K-Karak is sufficient enough to clear content in a reasonable manner. If the answer was no, nerfing K-Bramma wouldn't change that to a yes.

As much as some segments of the community bemoan the ineffectiveness of assault rifles/semi-auto/snipers for general content, that won't change by nerfing explosive weapons. The people who care about effectiveness will just move down the totem pole to the next best thing that can mow down a room. I'm sorry, but if the goal at hand is to deal with 50 enemies streaming into the room every 5 or so seconds, I'm going to opt for a weapon that can make those 50 enemies disappear in that time frame.

DE have effectively designed single target/precision weapons out of the game by leaning heavily on its horde shooter aspect. Unless that changes and we no longer have to deal with fodder enemies 90% of the time (aside few select cases), we are going to opt for solutions that clear crowds effectively, be it explosive weapons, melee weapons, room clearing abilities or a combination of them. Single target ballistic weapons are so far down the list of choices, they might as well not exist.

[Loza03]

3 hours ago, (PSN)caoshen0625 said:

small ammo pool size, like 1 or 2 max. 

extremely slow reload time

slow bullet travel speed, or travel in an arc.

give enemy ai the ability to dodge out of the range.

shrink radial size for fast firing guns, like only effect 2m tops. 

any of the above mentioned will do.

With the exception of the Enemy AI part, different options from the above for different AoE weapons would go a long way.

 

The goal is variety, and the ability to self-express one's own playstyle, is it not. Even when trying to make specialising in single-target weapons a viable pick, it'd be best if it could be done in a way that also makes different AoE weapons desirable for different reasons.

 

2 minutes ago, XAN3MK said:

This answer is hitting the nail on the head - and this same answer could be applied to all and every thread of similar ilk that pops up despite the subject being beaten to death over and over again, yet coming to the same conclusion. I'll even bold out the relevant part:

The only relevant matter is whether alternate options are actually viable. It doesn't matter if K-Bramma kills a horde quicker than K-Karak, what matters is if K-Karak is sufficient enough to clear content in a reasonable manner. If the answer was no, nerfing K-Bramma wouldn't change that to a yes.

As much as some segments of the community bemoan the ineffectiveness of assault rifles/semi-auto/snipers for general content, that won't change by nerfing explosive weapons. The people who care about effectiveness will just move down the totem pole to the next best thing that can mow down a room. I'm sorry, but if the goal at hand is to deal with 50 enemies streaming into the room every 5 or so seconds, I'm going to opt for a weapon that can make those 50 enemies disappear in that time frame.

DE have effectively designed single target/precision weapons out of the game by leaning heavily on its horde shooter aspect. Unless that changes and we no longer have to deal with fodder enemies 90% of the time (aside few select cases), we are going to opt for solutions that clear crowds effectively, be it explosive weapons, melee weapons, room clearing abilities or a combination of them. Single target ballistic weapons are so far down the list of choices, they might as well not exist.

Agreed, mostly.

DE have leant heavily on the horde-shooter aspect, but in a way that specifically favors AoE weapons in particular. Which is why other horde shooters still have viable single-target guns, but Warframe doesn't. They've allowed AoE weapons to have the same level of sustainability with access to ammo mutation or battery recharges, had the game primarily take place in corridors and other confined (usually flat) environments and designed the enemies to cluster in groups.

Compare this to the likes of something such as Deep Rock Galactic which uses its highly 3D environment to good effect, using verticality and enemy mobility to spread enemies out even in its most twisting caves. Plus, DRG just has AoE weapons have fewer shots than their single target counterparts, making them a much more precious resource than their single-target counterparts. Similar methods are used for a lot of horde-combat games. Even the Warriors series tends to limit big, screen-clearing attacks to special moves.

[XAN3MK]

13 minutes ago, Loza03 said:

Agreed, mostly.

DE have leant heavily on the horde-shooter aspect, but in a way that specifically favors AoE weapons in particular. Which is why other horde shooters still have viable single-target guns, but Warframe doesn't. They've allowed AoE weapons to have the same level of sustainability with access to ammo mutation or battery recharges, had the game primarily take place in corridors and other confined (usually flat) environments and designed the enemies to cluster in groups.

Compare this to the likes of something such as Deep Rock Galactic which uses its highly 3D environment to good effect, using verticality and enemy mobility to spread enemies out even in its most twisting caves. Plus, DRG just has AoE weapons have fewer shots than their single target counterparts, making them a much more precious resource than their single-target counterparts. Similar methods are used for a lot of horde-combat games. Even the Warriors series tends to limit big, screen-clearing attacks to special moves.

I agree, mostly, with the caveat that Warframe's AoE options extend to melee and abilities, through which the AoE-centric status quo can still be maintained, even if explosive AoE weapons are curbed. It is the reason why I think that most people miss the forest for the tree and this *cough* arsenal divide is more a result of how content and enemies are designed rather than just being an issue with the gulf of power between certain pieces of equipment.

That said, both DE and the community will have to settle on what kind of game Warframe is or wants to be. I don't particularly like horde shooters as such, not do I play Warframe for that aspect of it, it's just the aspect that I have to deal with on daily basis hence why I tackle it in the most effective way possible. Assuming we are to diversify both the gameplay, the arsenal/tools and the content, in which direction is Warframe going to go? If its Gears of Warframe, huddling behind walls and popping out to fire few shots at that 'one dangerous enemy', I'd like to be noted in time so I can check out. Cover-based and "tactical" shooters plagued this industry for over a decade before Doom '16 and the resurgence of "boomer shooters" in the middle 2010s happened and showed it how shooters are supposed to be designed.

If, however, Doom '16/Eternal, arena shooters or Vanquish are to be used as a blueprint, then I'm listening.

[_junguler]

1 hour ago, trst said:

Just because players spent "time" and resources to get something doesn't mean it wasn't poorly designed to begin with. A single mod which completely removes an entire mechanic from the game is something that should never have existed in the first place.

And even if it was hypothetically taken away players still had up to three years to benefit from it. While it could easily be replaced or have the cost refunded with a free legendary core.

why should players have to suffer from repeated mistakes and poor design decisions from the developers tho, the time and effort can not be refunded by in-game items and trust once broken is very hard to build back-up again. we didn't make this an issue, the developers did, we just found a way to mitigate it and it wasn't cheap or easily available either.

[(NSW)Greybones]

Gonna read the thread later, but at the moment I’m going to throw an idea out there;

More Exilus mod options. Mods with mechanic-changing effects so bizarre and wonderful and fun that a player would love to have them equipped, and would have to look at the limited mod space and take out one of the damage-increasing mods to replace.

Though if someone’s looking for all the damage, it doesn’t sound like AoE meta is a problem for them, since it’s fitting the bill nicely from what I can tell

[MixtheBlender]

This entire thread is send out this message, "People with aoe weapons kills all enemies. I have nothing to do in squad."

How about you solo those easy missions instead of going into a squad? I've realized a long time ago going into starchart missions with a squad, most of the time I have nothing to do because at least two players have decent weapons are enough to clear the entire room. If you put 4 players with end game viable weapons in a starchart mission, what do you expect?

Why is being jealous of others being powerful suddenly a trend?

I spend my time, resources, effort to reforma most of my aoe weapons because of this no-fun self stagger to put in cautious shot mod, so I can enjoy my powerful aoe weapons. The worst part is that mod don't even have the secondary weapon version, so I don't bother with aoe secondary at all. If you think trashing aoe weapons and forcing everyone to use single target guns is a good idea, I will just bring back my Mesa peacemaker and other nuke frames and clear the room for you. I don't even want to bother with single target head shot kills in a 1v 20+ aimbots hoard shooter game when our defense option is going offensive by game design.

Let me ask you this question: How many actual human players do you see actually using sniper rifle to clear rooms in a sniper rifle only sortie?

[Tyreaus]

18 hours ago, DrivaMain said:

The only way to discourage AoE weapons use is to kill Warframe's Horde Shooter gameplay. Significantly reduce enemy density but make them stronger. Railjack already accomplished this.

This is probably the best option, and what I find most alluring is that it doesn't have to be all Warframe content. We have more than 3 factions, one of which is - for all intents and purposes - designed as a horde faction. It's entirely possible to, say, curtail the unit numbers on Grineer to make them more of a single-target faction. Corpus could take a hybrid approach, with multiple MOAs and robotics linked to a few Techs whose deaths would kill off their robotic companions. Maybe even connected to their helmets.

  

17 minutes ago, _junguler said:

why should players have to suffer from repeated mistakes and poor design decisions from the developers tho, the time and effort can not be refunded by in-game items and trust once broken is very hard to build back-up again. we didn't make this an issue, the developers did, we just found a way to mitigate it and it wasn't cheap or easily available either.

Because players suffer either way. Time and effort invested in weapons is lost by the introduction of imbalanced weapons that either vastly outclass their existing arsenal and render it practically useless or, when used by another, overwrite that player's effort in a mission. Keeping in absurd systems doesn't forestall suffering, it just transmutes it and throws it onto someone else.

Take, for example, if a bug came out that required a lot of effort to learn to do well, but could complete a mission 3 seconds after loading in. You probably know nobody, other than the "cheater", is going to have a good time. But if you take that away, the "cheater" has their investment devalued all the way to zero. No matter what you do, somebody loses out.

[_junguler]

5 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

Because players suffer either way. Time and effort invested in weapons is lost by the introduction of imbalanced weapons that either vastly outclass their existing arsenal and render it practically useless or, when used by another, overwrite that player's effort in a mission. Keeping in absurd systems doesn't forestall suffering, it just transmutes it and throws it onto someone else.

Take, for example, if a bug came out that required a lot of effort to learn to do well, but could complete a mission 3 seconds after loading in. You probably know nobody, other than the "cheater", is going to have a good time. But if you take that away, the "cheater" has their investment devalued all the way to zero. No matter what you do, somebody loses out.

in the case of a new weapon being more powerful than the old ones this is justified as long as your weapon you are already using is not nerfed, we happily try to farm and use a more powerful weapon because it's an upgrade and worth it.

nerfing a mod we already used to using is not an upgrade but a clear downgrade and will make playing the game far worse, keep in mind we just recently had the update to buff primary and secondary weapons with the galvanized mods and the new arcanes, adding self-stagger back removes a whole bunch of choices from the list of weapons worthy of high level missions like steel path and just forces more people back their melee weapons again.

[(XBOX)Skippy575]

15 hours ago, Drachnyn said:

 'if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts looking like a nail'. 

Hey, anything can be a hammer if you hit it hard enough 🤣

[Loza03]

1 hour ago, XAN3MK said:

I agree, mostly, with the caveat that Warframe's AoE options extend to melee and abilities, through which the AoE-centric status quo can still be maintained, even if explosive AoE weapons are curbed. It is the reason why I think that most people miss the forest for the tree and this *cough* arsenal divide is more a result of how content and enemies are designed rather than just being an issue with the gulf of power between certain pieces of equipment.

That said, both DE and the community will have to settle on what kind of game Warframe is or wants to be. I don't particularly like horde shooters as such, not do I play Warframe for that aspect of it, it's just the aspect that I have to deal with on daily basis hence why I tackle it in the most effective way possible. Assuming we are to diversify both the gameplay, the arsenal/tools and the content, in which direction is Warframe going to go? If its Gears of Warframe, huddling behind walls and popping out to fire few shots at that 'one dangerous enemy', I'd like to be noted in time so I can check out. Cover-based and "tactical" shooters plagued this industry for over a decade before Doom '16 and the resurgence of "boomer shooters" in the middle 2010s happened and showed it how shooters are supposed to be designed.

If, however, Doom '16/Eternal, arena shooters or Vanquish are to be used as a blueprint, then I'm listening.

DOOM, Deep Rock, Mann vs Machine, Titanfall 2's Frontier Defence, Left 4 Dead - there's plenty of games with a be picked from in my book.

I've said my piece about AoE powers in other threads, but the long and short of it is that they can usually cover entire rooms, and often bring the game to a screeching halt in terms of it being a shooter, melee hack-n-slash or even caster-oriented magic simulator. Warframe's a versatile game that can offer a broad variety of experiences, its power creep just stands in the way of that and eventually homogenises the game.

21 minutes ago, Tyreaus said:

This is probably the best option, and what I find most alluring is that it doesn't have to be all Warframe content. We have more than 3 factions, one of which is - for all intents and purposes - designed as a horde faction. It's entirely possible to, say, curtail the unit numbers on Grineer to make them more of a single-target faction. Corpus could take a hybrid approach, with multiple MOAs and robotics linked to a few Techs whose deaths would kill off their robotic companions. Maybe even connected to their helmets.

Personally, I'd go with a system that's kind of like how the Covenant in Halo operate. Throw in sniper towers, shield drones, more cover and just cover the areas with tech that magnifies the power of Corpus so that they're better than both other factions at their own games... so long as the tech is working. A fully-loaded up Corpus, such as what you'd encounter walking into certain rooms in tilesets, could be crawling with MOA's that provide hordes and deeply entrenched Crewmen serving as beefy single targets, incentivising that you break down their defences before approaching the Corpus themselves.

Maybe even rework nullifiers into this. Let techs and crewman replace, repair or place down miniature versions of this technology to make endless missions viable, and you've got a faction that basically plays like a conglomerate of Engineers from TF2. You could even introduce a metric of 'object damage' to weapons to further diversify the options.

[trst]

1 hour ago, _junguler said:

why should players have to suffer from repeated mistakes and poor design decisions from the developers tho, the time and effort can not be refunded by in-game items and trust once broken is very hard to build back-up again. we didn't make this an issue, the developers did, we just found a way to mitigate it and it wasn't cheap or easily available either.

That mentality just forces the game's design into a corner where any mistake made or outdated design is now permanent.

Imagine the shift from movement 1.0 (stamina, fixed angle limited distance wall runs, and no bullet/double jump) to 2.0 but they can't make the change because of all the time players spent farming, ranking, and Formaing to slot the old stamina mods (which players did argue about at the time).

Also time and effort don't need to be refunded. This is a live service game after all and no matter what there will be a point where your past investments will be (in)directly made worse or obsolete.

[_junguler]

4 minutes ago, trst said:

That mentality just forces the game's design into a corner where any mistake made or outdated design is now permanent.

Imagine the shift from movement 1.0 (stamina, fixed angle limited distance wall runs, and no bullet/double jump) to 2.0 but they can't make the change because of all the time players spent farming, ranking, and Formaing to slot the old stamina mods (which players did argue about at the time).

Also time and effort don't need to be refunded. This is a live service game after all and no matter what there will be a point where your past investments will be (in)directly made worse or obsolete.

i have no issue with needing to adjust my builds when the game changes for the better like new parkour system they introduced and removes stamina like you said, the game was changed for the better and the endo (rare fusion cores) refunded for those stamina mods was just a bonus.

with the update that removed self harm from aoe weapons the game was also changed for the better but they added this self-stagger mechanic which was an unnecessary annoyance, primed sure footed was changed to remove this annoyance and for the most part players didn't complain about it. now if you remove that mod or nerf it the problem suddenly shows back up again and makes the weapons unusable again.

[Danielw8]

23 hours ago, DrivaMain said:

The only way to discourage AoE weapons use is to kill Warframe's Horde Shooter gameplay. Significantly reduce enemy density but make them stronger. Railjack already accomplished this.

Thats correct and steel path pretty much killed single target weapon specially in solo. I can one shot using kuva quartakk in fissures or steel path the difference is, in one i need kill 30 enemies per min in other one 120 or 130 per min.

[SneakyErvin]

16 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

Melee also already does less damage to additional targets hit, and it's a significant drop per target that is noticeable on non-meta weapons.

As for aoe meta, it makes no real sense to complain about x meta. The E in META is about effectiveness. Regardless, there is going to be a weapon type that is the most effective, and aoe isn't it for all content types. It isn't any different to how melee is only effective compared to guns in extended endless missions, but everywhere else it's specific guns or aoe damage.

If you deleted aoe ranged damage from the game [including abilities], most weapons would still be ignored and a meta would still exist. The cycle would just restart and going from complaints over aoe meta, to complaints over the new x meta.

The only relevant matter is whether alternate options are actually viable. It doesn't matter if K-Bramma kills a horde quicker than K-Karak, what matters is if K-Karak is sufficient enough to clear content in a reasonable manner. If the answer was no, nerfing K-Bramma wouldn't change that to a yes.

DE has even been adjusting content to where aoe vs single target ends up not mattering with some content only having one relevant enemy. There's a lot of content that run on a timer, with no meaningful reward for killing enemies and some recent mission types and events aoe damage wasn't relevant.

While you have a point, we dont exactly have any content besides Eidolons and a few select bosses where AoE isnt the preferable choice. That means we have 5-10% or so of the game where considering a non-AoE gun is a thing. 

And it isnt about automatically making single target guns viable through an AoE gun nerf, it is just that AoE guns are out of whack and could really use something to lower their power while still killing well. This is also more since it is unhealthy for a game to keep such things as is, because it leads to even harder times creating worthwhile content. DE made the mistake with the recent changes, they shouldnt have nerfed melee and buffed guns, they should have nerfed melee and nothing more really. The damage output in the game needs to be tighter across the board and reduced.

I mean sure I get it that people like their "power fantasy", but we are beyond that, we are effectively in WoW-Warlock regions of broken atm with both melee and now AoE guns aswell. Why do I need to deal 2 million damage when 200k would do the job? Sure someone will go "but long endless!", well you get to that point earlier if you deal lower damage, which means you get to what you think is fun much quicker.

edit: Butterfinger typos.

[Yamazuki]

23 minutes ago, SneakyErvin said:

While you have a point, we dont exactly have any content besides Eidolons and a few select bosses where AoE isnt the preferable choice. That means we have 5-10% or so of the game where considering a non-AoE gun is a thing. 

And it isnt about automatically making single target guns viable through an AoE gun nerf, it is just that AoE guns are out of whack and could really use something to lower their power while still killing well. This is also more since it is unhealthy for a game to keep such things as is, because it leads to even harder times creating worthwhile content. DE made the mistake with the recent changes, they shouldnt have nerfed melee and buffed guns, they should have nerfed melee and nothing more really. The damage output in the game needs to be tighter across the board and reduced.

I mean sure I get it that people like their "power fantasy", but we are beyond that, we are effectively in WoW-Warlock regions of broken atm with both melee and now AoE guns aswell. Why do I need to deal 2 million damage when 200k would do the job? Sure someone will go "but long endless!", well you get to that point earlier if you deal lower damage, which means you get to what you think is fun much quicker.

edit: Butterfinger typos.

"Preferable" and "Effective" aren't the same thing. If the focus is on what people are preferring to use, the topic is no longer about "meta", but about dictating what weapons people should and shouldn't be using, which is a totally different matter and is a "problem" that will never, ever, go away, because a small group of people in this world feel the need to tell everyone else how they should be doing things, despite it being none of their concern.  As well as the fact one type of weapon is always going to dominate specific content types they shine in.

For most missions, using aoe weapons just adds a +1 to your profile, and no meaningful reward. Defense/Exterminate are some of the few instances where your mission time is actually decreasing with quicker kills; and defense favors abilities and so do some of the other grinds in the game.

Popularity isn't even always about actual power levels. The larger player base will gravitate towards what's comfortable and offers ease of use. Some past comfort picks weren't even that strong and their damage pretty much fell off a cliff past a point, but that didn't matter given it required sitting in an endless mission, which nearly no one does. SP even shows this with how some aoe weapons can't actually kill Grineer instantly without using abilities unless they have slash spam.

Every "ease of use" weapon would have to have its damage gutted for the sole purpose of lowering their usage. Adjusting weapons entirely because they're "used too much" isn't "balance", and you can't even say they do too much damage. This too much damage applies to single target damage that deal absurd amounts of damage [and can be modded to hit multiple targets] which are conveniently not on the suggested nerfing block strictly because they aren't used a lot. 

[rockscl]

give a reason to not kill

[SneakyErvin]

2 hours ago, Yamazuki said:

"Preferable" and "Effective" aren't the same thing. If the focus is on what people are preferring to use, the topic is no longer about "meta", but about dictating what weapons people should and shouldn't be using, which is a totally different matter and is a "problem" that will never, ever, go away, because a small group of people in this world feel the need to tell everyone else how they should be doing things, despite it being none of their concern.  As well as the fact one type of weapon is always going to dominate specific content types they shine in.

For most missions, using aoe weapons just adds a +1 to your profile, and no meaningful reward. Defense/Exterminate are some of the few instances where your mission time is actually decreasing with quicker kills; and defense favors abilities and so do some of the other grinds in the game.

Popularity isn't even always about actual power levels. The larger player base will gravitate towards what's comfortable and offers ease of use. Some past comfort picks weren't even that strong and their damage pretty much fell off a cliff past a point, but that didn't matter given it required sitting in an endless mission, which nearly no one does. SP even shows this with how some aoe weapons can't actually kill Grineer instantly without using abilities unless they have slash spam.

Every "ease of use" weapon would have to have its damage gutted for the sole purpose of lowering their usage. Adjusting weapons entirely because they're "used too much" isn't "balance", and you can't even say they do too much damage. This too much damage applies to single target damage that deal absurd amounts of damage [and can be modded to hit multiple targets] which are conveniently not on the suggested nerfing block strictly because they aren't used a lot. 

Seperating the two in this discussion is really semantics. And you are likely reading in too much on the word preferable in the context. No one implied this what about what others see as preferable, but what is preferable on the whole according to the majority i.e meta weapons. We prefer to use meta weapons which is why AoE weapons are preferable in 90% of the content. It doesnt matter if one type will still dominate a type of content or most content, but if the gap is far more narrow people can easily pick up the second best option aswell. I still dont know where you got it from that this had anything to do with people telling others how to do it.

Sure, but it doesnt make the AoE weapons less OP or less optimal for those missions aswell. It is better to have the proper tool incase you need to use it than not having it at all. And with the way WF "endgame" is set up, there are few places where you wont use your AoE gun or melee frequently. We just dont make use of the diverse amount of missions we have at our disposal.

All AoE guns can more or less get access to reliable slash, which further increases the OP nature of them, since there is no faction they are actually weak against. Grineer may take the initial hit but the bleed will finish them as you move on. And we have access to slash through modding, so there shouldnt really be an "unless" variable. I guess the exception would be Kogris since it doesnt really rock a reliable crit stat, but then again it has other options that makes it wipe out anything.

I dont think anyone has said anything regarding nerfing weapons because of popularity. And since this is about AoE weapons I didnt really feel the need to bring up overkill damage from single target weapons, since obviously they should follow the same path. "Ease of use" is not a reason to nerf something unless it also comes with absurd amounts of damage. I'm just curious what non-AoE weapons you see any ease of use in. I cant think of any.

[Keiyadan]

vor einer Stunde schrieb rockscl:

give a reason to not kill

not all missions do require killing any enemys but most of the time it is an easy solution and good way not to get surroundet by enemys
for example you dont need to kill the Demolyst / Demolishers in Disruption missions you just have to hold them away from the conduits like switch teleporting them back where they came from it is not save and not easy but i can be done
at the moment only Defence, exterminate, and ESO/SO, assasionations Infested Salvage and some open world bounties are the missions that requirer that you kill enemys if we dont cound ralijack missions or archwing missions too here
(but thats only the ones i can think of for now)

[Merrcenary]

idk why people still comenting in this thread.
there always will be people who will demand to "nerf melee" and then "nerf aoe weapons". after their goal is achieved they will shift to another section of a people favorite weapons and will again start demand to "nerf glaives" , after that they will demand to nerf assault rifles because, you know, they outperfrom their bows, and then same will happen with beam weapons etc etc. all that will continue in a loop.
just stop bringing attention to those people and their threads

 

[0_The_F00l]

42 minutes ago, Merrcenary said:

idk why people still comenting in this thread.
there always will be people who will demand to "nerf melee" and then "nerf aoe weapons". after their goal is achieved they will shift to another section of a people favorite weapons and will again start demand to "nerf glaives" , after that they will demand to nerf assault rifles because, you know, they outperfrom their bows, and then same will happen with beam weapons etc etc. all that will continue in a loop.
just stop bringing attention to those people and their threads

 

Oh the irony.

You do realise that you are adding to the "attention" by commenting in this thread.

[Lakais]

The best option I have come up with is to redesign critical damage system. By removing critical chance as a stat and making it a guarantee at a weak point hit, and then removing the chance for AoE parts of any attack to actually proc a crit; So you can still crit by a direct hit or by a well-aimed melee, but the most reliable way is to use single-target percision weaponry. This would also give ranged weapons more oomph compared to melee weapons as again; easier to hit weak points with a percision weapon. 

I know, it's a MASSIVE hit to general damage output. "This game is about mowing down hoards of mooks!" and all that. But is it? Does it need to be? And of course the always touted "Nerfs are bad! Never good! Buffs only!" And I respectfully don't subscribe to that notion and believe that if any real changes to WF's combat system are to be made, they have to be drastic. 

 

[BahamutKaiser]

So back to status immune frames, great job. 

[(NSW)Greybones]

7 hours ago, rockscl said:

give a reason to not kill

Oooh. What if there were consequences to killing? “Gotta aim with precision to avoid hitting and killing the target”.

🤔 Being overpowered with huge AoE is the efficient answer to most things in this game. It’s intriguing to consider a case where that might be the wrong answer beyond boredom

edit: I’ve yet to kill a synthesis target, but I know it’s possible; wouldn’t say “No” if they were a little squishier

[Tiltskillet]

6 minutes ago, BahamutKaiser said:

So back to status immune frames, great job. 

The OP might have meant all sources of stagger resistance.  It's hard to tell for sure until we see the published dissertation in full.

But even then it's  simply "back to non-staggering AoE, great job."

 

 

[Duality52]

On 2021-08-31 at 3:31 AM, SneakyErvin said:

They (melee) also dont ignore ceilings, walls, floors or obstacles in the terrain.

Remember when DE had a clip of someone using an old Maiming Strike Scoliac through walls in a Derelict Survival?

Warframe is one of the few shooter games I've played where majority of the AoE ignores line of sight check. Coupled with (Primed) Firestorm and/or certain abilities (Gauss's Thermal Sunder), there should be more of proper aiming than just mindlessly spamming explosives whether a red arrow shows up on your minimap.

Have the damage of AoE (weapon and abilities) get reduced or even outright negated if the AoE is going through certain walls. The thicker the wall, the higher the damage reduction. With Punch Through/(Primed) Firestorm, part of the damage reduction can be reduced. However, DE will need to make AoE projectiles ignoring Punch-Through like the Trumna's Alt-Fire.